Originally posted by Doc
Motion-Kenpo has a built in "Assumption of Failure." Phrases like "I don't expect to be able to do a technique." A technique is only an idea." "too much emphasis on a text book technique in the real world," "The techniques are just drills" etc. illustrate this position. The "teacher" dessiminates information and students assimilate and demonstrate through tailoring what is functional for them.
I don't agree with your interpretation here. There is a BIG difference between me, as an individual, saying, "I don't think I could successfully execute a technique in the real world" and saying "I don't think kenpo techniques will work in the real world." I may have stated my position a little differently up above, so let me clarify.
I don't know that I'm skilled enough (yet) to successfully execute a "textbook technique" in a real-life violent encounter. However, I believe that those skilled in kenpo WOULD execute the techniques as they were designed.
I guess my big difference has to do with how one defines "Assumption of Failure." In my mind, AoF means that I will always have another strike prepared after my previous strike, to ensure I'm not left surprised and unprepared to deal with an attacker. Since many other martial arts teach "one strike" techniques, a student could be left as a sitting duck if, say, that reverse punch doesn't kill the attacker. Kenpo logically teaches techniques with multiple strikes to ensure that we don't fall into the "one strike, one kill" mentality. Additionally, grafting, suffixing, etc. ensure that the completion of a technique doesn't leave me unprepared. I can ALWAYS flow into another technique if I need to.
Am I totally off-base in my definition here?
Other interpretations as well as Sublevel Four Kenpo have a built in "Assumption of Success." We Teach the technique with an expectation it will be used as taught in the beginning, and work the student through it and create basic skills to insure it is functional "as is."
Maybe it's just a question of definition again, but it seems that this is what ALL kenpo instructors do. They work the techniques and the basics, assuming that the student will ultimately use the "textbook technique" to subdue the attacker. But I absolutely do NOT believe that there are techniques to handle all situations for a beginning student, and that's why the Assumption of Failure matters so much. It prevents the paralysis that comes with a new situation.
I know this seems strange, but the modern version of Kenpo is anamolous in the arts with the concept of "tailoring" and was unusual in the arts in general until more recently. Although arts like "Systema" and "Jeet Kun Do" are somewhat similar I attribute their success (or lack of) to instruction, not the art. That is, if you studied night after night with Ed Parker would you need to tailor what he taught you? Of course not, because as a teacher he would only share with you what was useful and workable for you. But MK is a "proliferation interpretation" designed to reach masses of people unlike arts that precede it where the top 2 or 3 teachers or even the creator is on the floor with students every night.
But when you as the head of a system have mostly "crossover instructors" you have to send out to teach a lesson plan and these teachers are not studying with you night after night, than conceptual ideas are the only way you can dessiminate this information efficiently and effectively to multitudes of people who are geographically removed from each other and the source. Many leaped from other arts as black belts and simply switched their schools over to Kenpo. This should help you understand why Motion-Kenpo is "motion and conceptual idea based" with instructors forced to expose students to many ideas, drills, and options to insure effectiveness of the vehicle.
Ultimate, Motion-Kenpo is just like every other art. It depends on who teaches you.
I agree with most of your statements here -- the success of the art (regardless of what it is) for an individual depends on the teacher. And any teacher who is not spending time working closely with his/her students is no teacher at all -- he or she is a "studio owner" only.
I think it's a bit of a disservice, though, to lump what you call Motion kenpo in with the chaos that is Jeet Kune Do. I'm sure there are some "crossover instructors" in kenpo, but I don't see the "lesson plan" mentality you describe. I don't see the chaotic mish-mash of philosophies in kenpo, nor the lack of in-depth knowledge that a "lesson plan" system would guarantee. Maybe it's because I'm lucky and have good instructors; or maybe it's because black-belt factories are a losing game in the long run and they are destined to die out ("Martial Darwinism?" :shrug: ).
I know this went longer than I intended, but my points really are this:
1) I think our two definitions of "Assumption of Failure" are different.
2) I think we need to distinguish between an individual's ability to execute a technique in the real world and the technique itself working in the real world.
3) All (good) teachers (regardless of the system) work their students to ensure the basics are mastered and intend for those techniques to work for the student.
4) The teacher is the critical component of the system -- a good system will not work with a bad teacher, and a poor system can work with a good teacher.
Looking forward to your rebuttal. Thanks.
Tad Finnegan
