Developing effective techniques

[Brother John]

Mr. Robertson

I found your reply very thought provoking, so I hope you don’t mind if I single it out for a bit more discussion. It’s meant in the spirit of discussion/conversation… so although I may disagree too and fro, it’s just a chat betwixt friends. ((and not JUST between us, others may interject too… that’s why I’m putting this on an OPEN forum))

So here goes. For the sake of speed please allow me to interject my comments and questions between the words of your own post. (hope that’s not too confusing)

1. This big new modern training is the way I was taught and am being taught and try to teach. It's clearly the way a lot of the, "old-fashioned," guys were taught, and how they teach.

Not really sure what you are trying to get at with this. Are you saying that many of the things that some people say is “new” is actually quite old? That there’s nothing new under the sun? Could be. Sort of an irrelevant point I think. I don’t care as much about the date of it’s creation and induction as it’s ability to make my hammers thunder and my crane leap.

3. Fancy ideas and cool technologies are, too often, shoved upon beginning students. Who do not need to learn to be creative. They need to learn how to block and punch.

Amen!!!

4. No form of training is perfect. No new set of skills will render us invulnerable.

But that’s not a good argument for not seeking improvement in your way of training. Invulnerability is a pipe dream, I just want tomorrow to find me better than today.

5. There's a difference between, "creativity," and "fingerpainting." Premature inventiveness leads to fingerpainting, not creativity.

This statement carries the presupposition that the creativity in question is premature. What would you say to a person ‘creating’ w/in Kenpo, but done thoughtfully and after a great deal of work? This wouldn’t be ‘premature’ would it? What could prevent this person from creating?

6. The set curriculum is set for good reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with what is ordinarily thought of as fighting.

I don’t really understand what you are talking about as you left it a little open ended and didn’t say what these other ‘good reasons’ are. Are you talking about Mr. Parker’s efforts to create a business out of Kenpo… there are those that argue that some of the curricula was created to fill time between belts. I don’t know if I agree with that 100%…but it’s plausible I suppose. Maybe if you could let us know what those other ‘good reasons’ are that haven’t a thing to do with what we ‘ordinarily’ think of as fighting.

7. All too often, we are "improving," kenpo right out of existence--either by superadding junk, or improvising technique that doesn't logically fit concepts and principles, or eliminating sets and forms and techniques that don't immediately suit our little ideas of, "what works."

I guess that this paragraph, in the context of some of your other points, leaves me wondering if you’re implying that those who strive to ‘improve’ Kenpo are extinguishing Kenpo OR that some are and some aren’t. In other words are you saying that your opinion is that all those who add, improvise concepts & principles or eliminate sets & forms & techniques are eliminating Kenpo… or just some? I guess that coming from my side of the fence has me wondering this as I hail from an association that practices an American Kenpo Karate that has eliminated some sets & techniques, definitely created new ones as well as new concepts and training practices. Not that I take offense if that’s what you believe. Not everyone will always agree with what others do…that’d make life too boring. Just want to explore your reasoning as I know you to be a person who puts thought and consideration into whatever you do.

8. merely being a very good martial artist and knowing a lot doesn't make you Ed Parker.

Are you then claiming that only Ed Parker Sr. can improve, innovate and create in Kenpo?

Thanks for considering my questions and points.

Your brother
John

 

[parkerkarate]

I have found that much of what we do in Kenpo is munipulate the opponent. Once you learn how the opponent will react to your offence you can build off of that. From there you can peice together movements, some to stun the guy for the next hit and others to truely hurt them. And then of course you can come up extensions which will blow the opponent away taking Bow of Compulsion for example. Just some things for you to think about.

 

[Brother John]

Just wondering if my questions were ever going to be addressed.
I thought we had a good 'conversation' of sorts.

Maybe we could pick up where we left off...

Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

Whoops, my screw-up.

Here's what I meant.

First off, the point about Mr. Parker: he was in a unique historical and cultural situation, of the sort you cannot plan in advance or create yourself. It's like being Shakespeare or Mozart; talent ain't enough, hard work ain't enough--you have to be born into the right place at the right time.

Moreover, "Mr. Parker," serves as the sort of idea that Michel Foucault calls an, "author-function:" if you look at all the bits and pieces of American kenpo that come from others (Jimmy Wing Woo, Chuck Sullivan, many others), well, he's kinda serving as the label on the can...except, I insist, the teaching system's rather brilliant, Arthur Murray or not.

Right now, though, it looks to me (like I'd know) that a very great deal of the talk-talk about "innovation," and "creativity," is really just marketing, together with the importation of the American prediliction for "efficiency," and a lot of capitalist ideology, which also pushes, "modernization," at every level.

Then too, I personally think that a lot of what's discussed on these forums, and apparently a lot of the way kenpo gets taught, says a lot more about male fantasy than it does good practice. These ideas of invulnerability, of perfection, of threats everywhere--uh, well, I think of Freud's essay, "The Uncanny," and follow-up discussion by folks like Neil Hertz and Rosalind Krauss among others. It has more to do with a kind of armoring up...and if folks think THAT'S an annoying comment, they might want to go look at the essays I just mentioned in reference to just what exactly it is that's being armored. Let's just say that there's a deep suspicion that when somebody says, "You're being a dick," they're right.

Last, I honestly think that the whole, "creativity," jazz is about the last thing we ought to worry about. In fact, I think it's a great way to duck the realities of plain old garden-variety sweat...the other stuff will come along in its own good time, and moreover the popular history of the word, "creativity," doesn't suggest real progress at all, to me.

Anyway...

 

[Brother John]

First off, the point about Mr. Parker: he was in a unique historical and cultural situation, of the sort you cannot plan in advance or create yourself. It's like being Shakespeare or Mozart; talent ain't enough, hard work ain't enough--you have to be born into the right place at the right time.
Moreover, "Mr. Parker," serves as the sort of idea that Michel Foucault calls an, "author-function:" if you look at all the bits and pieces of American kenpo that come from others (Jimmy Wing Woo, Chuck Sullivan, many others), well, he's kinda serving as the label on the can...except, I insist, the teaching system's rather brilliant, Arthur Murray or not.

Thanks for replying so soon. I thought it'd been a simple oversight, you are very 'prolific' on this and other forums...lots O' oars in the water and all.

First off: What is Foucault's "author-function" in a nutshell. I think I might be able to infer the gist of it, but I'd like to not suppose that I understand: it generally leads me down the wrong path and I end up missing some good info.

I have to agree wholeheartedly that Mr. Parker Sr. was the right man at the right time in the right environment surrounded by the right people. It's as though (as far as martial arts goes at least) he had destiny/karma/luck/synchronicity/giftedness and a shaving from the Blarney Stone on his side! Everything was just so for the creation of American Kenpo Karate. Agreed.
BUT: Why does that preclude others, especially those of his own system who devoted themselves to learning/understanding and teaching it, from taking it's configuration and altering it to increase proficiency and accelerate the rate at which the general student aquires the skill/knowledge/ability?

Please note: I can only speak of my own experience from within the American Kenpo Karate International (AKKI), a changed/augmented/altered version of it's parent art....Ed Parker's American Kenpo Karate as taught in the IKKA. Even then, I can only speak for myself.

You see, I take it a lot like most other 'studies' or sciences. For instance physics: if we had left it at Newton...we wouldn't have gone far. (He'd be more like Chow in this analogy...not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying it out)
Albert Einstein would be like our Ed Parker Sr., one whose depth of insight and understanding turned everything around and set up an astoundingly deep study. What Einstein left us with is still functional and deep...
but it lead men like Stephen Hawkings to make some other very insightful and also deep extrapolations from where he left off.

I guess I'm saying that I don't think any GIANT is so tall that others can not stand on their shoulders and see even further.

Right now, though, it looks to me (like I'd know) that a very great deal of the talk-talk about "innovation," and "creativity," is really just marketing, together with the importation of the American prediliction for "efficiency," and a lot of capitalist ideology, which also pushes, "modernization," at every level.

I really don't mean this to sound rude Robert, please know that...but:
How do you know?
I realize that you qualified what you said with (Like I'd know), but you are putting forth your thoughts on this as though you did. How much investigation have you made into ours or some of the other branches of American Kenpo to investigate these claims. I realize that it doesn't interest you enough probably... you are more than pleased with what you are learning in the LTKKA, as you should be...it's quality stuff. But that doesn't mean it's the "only quality" right? The fact that what Mr. Parker left us with was Monumental doesn't preclude others taking it further, I think. So... since you are putting this forward as though you did know.... how did you arrive at this conclusion??

These ideas of invulnerability, of perfection, of threats everywhere

Who is it, what group is it, that is claiming these things? Iv'e not heard that anywhere. Well...ok, maybe from some of the inflated ego's in BJJ, but not Kenpo.

Last, I honestly think that the whole, "creativity," jazz is about the last thing we ought to worry about. In fact, I think it's a great way to duck the realities of plain old garden-variety sweat

Seems to me that you are assuming that those who claim to have innovated didn't pay their due on the matts or spend their time sweating and working hard. I have NO idea about any other camp, but I can say without reservation: not Paul Mills.
It also seems (I could be wrong) that you are assuming that those who practice in a system that makes these claims of 'greater proficiency' innovation, creativity..etc. Anything that deviates from EPAK... don't work hard.
Not us.

I must leave my computer now, but I'll return later to finish. Please reply if you want in the meantime though.

THanks for restarting the conversation.

Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

The Foucault thingy is pretty easy to understand: it's kind of like saying that Mr. Parker's name works more or less as a brand name does--think, "Betty Crocker"--and it looks as though you've pretty m uch got it anyway. The reference is to Michel Foucault, "What Is An Author?" in his collection, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."

As for the "how the heck do YOU know?" question, which seems pretty legit to me, well, first off, I'm going by the sorts of comments I see a lot on these forums. second off---hm. Should I name names? Not really needed...let's just say that I've seen several videos of different martial arts instructors who push speed, speed, speed, and throw around a lot of arcane language--and what I actually see are big instructors whacking the hell out of smaller students. Sort of an unhappy combo of hypnosis, group-think, bullying...of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.

Of course, I suspect that some of this just comes out of my own lack of expertise and diverse experience in the martial arts world. But then, I'm a helluva lot more impressed by Gene LeBell than by Bruce Lee, so maybe it's just my views.

Thank you for the courteous question; I hope I answered politely about what I thought.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
some might say "wow..no techniques?"
with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

shawn

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
some might say "wow..no techniques?"
with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

shawn

Man, you guys will never get the message of what we're truly about because you're always in the peanut gallery instead of on the floor with us. Yes, you're out of line because you have no idea how I, or we, train, only how you and those around you do. Until you've experienced it, don't comment on it, simple enough.

DarK LorD

 

[Brother John]

The Foucault thingy is pretty easy to understand: it's kind of like saying that Mr. Parker's name works more or less as a brand name does--think, "Betty Crocker"--and it looks as though you've pretty m uch got it anyway. The reference is to Michel Foucault, "What Is An Author?" in his collection, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."

I think I see what you are saying. It's like if I begin a 'lecture' in class to my students with "Mr. Parker always said..." and now they are supposed to perk up all the more and buy it hook line and sinker regardless...because it was first qualified as coming from "The Source". Plus "Betty" didn't write all of the recipes...but they do go in Her box, so it must be good. Am I getting it teach?
My ears perked up when you mentioned the name "Foacault". I read "Foacault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco a couple of years ago... just couldn't recall the significance of "Foacault" or his darn Pendulum in the book. :idunno: I'll leave it to you well read litterary types. :asian: Meanwhile I'll keep shouting at the screen as though the QB of the GIANTS can actually hear me...
or wants too. :uhyeah:

As for the "how the heck do YOU know?" question,
I'm going by the sorts of comments I see a lot on these forums.
I've seen several videos of different martial arts instructors who push speed, speed, speed, and throw around a lot of arcane language--and what I actually see are big instructors whacking the hell out of smaller students. Sort of an unhappy combo of hypnosis, group-think, bullying...of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.

First off, please let me say this: If I am one of those people whose comments you are referring too...please know this: I am NO authority on the AKKI! Oh, I can answer many questions about it, but much of my knowledge is second hand at best. Believe me, I'm NO representative of the association at this point in my journey. ((Who knows about later, maybe if the stars align and I find the Ruby slippers and win the lotto...that woudn't hurt)) There are Orange Belts who've had more contact with Mr. Mills or the first generation students of Mr. Mills than I have, and sadly...I've not been able to attend one of our semi-annual camps in Las Vegas in some time. I keep in touch, get with my instructor who lives 9 hours away, and I keep working with what I've got...but PLEASE don't look to me as indicative of the AKKI. Though on the internet I'm probably one of the more active/outspoken people...and I sure can give my "Rah-Rah-Rah..." for our team. Being out of touch doesn't make me less enthusiastic, just behind and HUNGRY.
A better choice would be Mr. Derek C. Ence, who used to post here some and posts on other sites more than here. If you are looking to Posts to give you a barometer of an association (more on that in a moment)...Mr. Ence would get you MUCH MUCH closer to bulls-eye than the likes of your Brother John. By FAR. Mr. John Connolly of Texas would also be a Fine choice above and beyond me. He posts here too and fro as "Fastmover". A top notch guy!

Secondly: ((here's the part, Robert, where I tell you something you already know full well)) Seldom, if EVER, do the opinions of a few...posted to an internet forum.. give one a good basis on which to make a decision about diddly-squat. An internet forum is NO barometer for an art nor for an association/branch of that art! The internet is broad and far reaching, but it's shallow. I think you know what I mean as I believe you've said as much yourself previously.

Next: The videos.
The videos on the AKKI forum. I don't quite know what to say about them. I like them, and I don't. I like them because I know the tremendous speed and power of Mr. Mills and the other individuals in the videos... it's impressive!!! I'd been in the martial arts for some time before I first witnessed ANYONE or ANYTHING about the AKKI. I was already in Love with Kenpo from a good deal of previous exposure...including attending a couple of seminars by Mr. Parker. ((that was a treat to say the least)) My best friend from my youth had moved away and was testing for his Black in the AKKI at one of the Vegas camps. I was responsible for his introduction into the martial arts in the first place, and we really are just like brothers. Well...he flew my wife and I to Vegas to witness his test. MAN...what an experience!! I watched the test, then I watched two days full of seminars! I was 110% blown away!! (Sorry, I'm sliding into my Rah-Rah-Rah bit... indulge me and chalk it up to enthusiastic youth) Those videos are show-casing Mr. Mills' most talked about ability...to move like lightening. What they aren't showing you is that Mr. Mills is also a whole package...timing, power, form, knowledge, insight, understanding...all of it. They (the videos) also aren't doing anything to be 'instructive'. See, Mr. Tattum and others have put out instructional videos with which they've tried to bring forth something from particular techniques or whathaveyou... those on the AKKI forum do not teach. It's not their purpose. They give you NO sense of the curriculum or it's worth. They've not got a thing to do with what is innovative about the AKKI material or what the effects of said innovations have on the students/members are.

of course, it's just a video, and for some, the head of my own school has looked just as bad.

Yes, good point. It's just a video...and a non-instructive one at that.

Next: The 'Arcane Language'.
I know where you are coming from, but I disagree with the conclusions it seems to have lead you to.
When I first started to investigate Kenpo in my youth I was SO impressed with the techniques!! But I felt that the terminology was odd and very verbose. I was used to the nice, neat (well...usually) terminology of science with it's roots in Latin. But then there's these concepts/principles things that are used in Kenpo (mind you, I'm using the name Kenpo generally for all branches that came from EPAK as well as EPAK its self...especially since at that time, EPAK was ALL I knew of)...and these require codification if they are to be passed on to students so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Well, I think that Mr. Mills has some very unique insights into Kenpo...things that needed to be codified for us to learn. I don't find Mr. Mills' and the AKKI's verbiage to be so different in use or applicability than most of what you can find from Mr. Parker and the IKKA. I mean, I know what to do with "internal and external elastic recoil" just as much as I do with "marriage of gravity" and "angle of incidence". My problem with any of it is this: "The Map is NOT the territory". We sometimes get too caught up in our favorite terms and forget to focus on the lessons that they are meant to codify. Bruce Lee might have slapped us on the head for staring at the finger instead of gazing at the Moon. :supcool: Or as my good friend Brian is fond of saying "Too many Cliff Claven's in Kenpo".
SO my point? I don't see how an AKKI person bandying about some arcane sounding wordage is any different than an IKKA or LTKKA person bandying about some arcane sounding wordage. Truth be known, if you are ever taught the meaning of these terms and taught to apply what they represent.... they are quite useful. I know I'm better at Kenpo for them, bet you are too. Nomenclature is always 'arcane' to those who aren't informed.

Of course, I suspect that some of this just comes out of my own lack of expertise and diverse experience in the martial arts world. But then, I'm a helluva lot more impressed by Gene LeBell than by Bruce Lee, so maybe it's just my views.

I don't know about your lack of expertise in the martial arts world, you know your own back yard (Kenpo) well enough. :asian: and I'd be more petrified of Mr. LeBell than Mr. Lee too. (like degrees of petrification matter...) Something about the sound and feel of my bones splintering and joints rending that makes me wanna curl up in the fetal position, whimper and reach for my blankie.

Thank you as well, Robert,for this polite exchange; really! All too often when subjects like these come up on forums (shallow as they may be, we do go on typing don't we?) we get mad, take sides, get defensive...but don't talk it out and come to a better understanding of one another.
I'm really enjoying this!

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
some might say "wow..no techniques?"
with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

shawn

Shawn:

a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense.

IT IS.
Thing is, if you don't have a technique...
then your 'concepts and principles' have gotta WALK to the Ball!
((NO VEHICLE))
It appears that you have no idea of what American Kenpo teaches, why it teaches it or what we gain from it.

This sounds like an issue for you.
Mayhap you should've created your own thread for it, you'd get more replies.

Your Brother
John

 

[BlackCatBonz]

wow.....y'all get testy about techniques

shawn

 

[Brother John]

wow.....y'all get testy about techniques

shawn

Nah...not really. In the long run you can take'm or leave'm I guess. Your prerogative.
What does get my ire up is someone from the outside, peeking inside and then letting us know what's wrong with what we are doing. It is:
A: Innacurate, way off the mark in-fact.
B: Rude.
C: Misguided/illogical
D: All of A-B and C

Answer: D

Next: View this connundrum...

im not a student of EPAK

i have never studied EPAK

Yet you were making judgemental statements about what's wrong with the American Kenpo way of looking at and doing techniques (Which conclusions were wrong in the first place)

Then there's this here beaut...

a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense

((a true statement by the way, the closest you got to the way we do things...but then you have to go and muddy the water with this chum.......)

the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.

IF techniques are the vehicle for teaching concepts and principles, yet your art taught no techniques...then HOW could you be taught the concepts and principles. You CONTRADICTED yourself badly. If you are going to take pot-shots from the outside in, at least agree with yourself from one sentence to the next.

with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

Wow...no techniques . (see...you said someone would say that....Your'e psychic) No wonder you wouldn't have to worry about 'failing', that would demand a criteria for failure... no curriculum, no criteria for pass or fail....I'M GOIN TO DISNEYLAND!!! NO failure all around!!! Whoohoooooo...

By the way, those 'endless combinations of movement'...combinations of what? Not techniques surely...
But then...combinations of what??
:idunno:
Ponderous


Even Your Brother
John

 

[Touch Of Death]

im not a student of EPAK, and maybe i am out of line saying this because i am not affiliated with the teachings, but i do understand the background.
learning technique for technique sake is fine as a training tool to develop speed, accuracy, and stamina. but to teach technique as a basis for self defense is only a set-up for failure. a technique should be a vehicle for teaching concepts and principles for self defense. even if you have 3000 techniques memorized.....is that enough to deal with every situation? or would it be better to say that a group of techniques teaches a student this group of principles, and this group another.
again.....i have never studied EPAK, but my experience in MA's has always been in kempo, and not just kosho-ryu. the first system i studied taught no techniques, but it did teach principles of movement and you built from those principles.
some might say "wow..no techniques?"
with no techniques, i didnt have to worry about one failing, but i was left with an endless combination of movement.

shawn

I completly agree with you. Being technique focused, is more of a savy business idea than a sound fighting method. It keeps the students begging for more when they were actualy handed all the tools they needed on the first tech. Pass me a peanut.
Sean

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

I completly agree with you. Being technique focused, is more of a savy business idea than a sound fighting method. It keeps the students begging for more when they were actualy handed all the tools they needed on the first tech. Pass me a peanut.
Sean

So what exactly is your art then Sean? If you don't like the premise what AK teaches, why are you doing it?

DarK LorD

 

[Touch Of Death]

So what exactly is your art then Sean? If you don't like the premise what AK teaches, why are you doing it?

DarK LorD

I'm not in your kind of Kenpo, we are not technique focused; so, I 'm not "doing it", to answer your question. We happen to be eight consideration focused, and we use the techs to explore the considerations of combat. Look Clyde its very simple techs are very specific reactions to very specific situations, but when you step back they all have common threads. Look at "Delayed Sword" Its two minor moves and one major move and cross out. Now look at "sword of destruction"... Two minor moves and one major and cross out. And the list goes on. Heck you could teach the whole art baseed on Mr. Parkers "Dinner" analogy... appetizer, main course, and dessert. To someone thats not EPAK this all seems pretty basic, but the premise of AK is not teching omnipotent techs; its premise is to teach us to fight.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

You do realize that what you're really doing is going back to older Chinese approaches--look at the "Eight Considerations," title, even--think "Eight Trigrams Boxing," and a whole buncha other schools from classical China.

I thought it was all about Progress?

Then, of course, there's the fact that students need structures--which we can discuss and explain, as opposed to these "considerations," which seem to dissolve into woodsmoke every time an explanation and some detail is asked for.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You do realize that what you're really doing is going back to older Chinese approaches--look at the "Eight Considerations," title, even--think "Eight Trigrams Boxing," and a whole buncha other schools from classical China.

I thought it was all about Progress?

Then, of course, there's the fact that students need structures--which we can discuss and explain, as opposed to these "considerations," which seem to dissolve into woodsmoke every time an explanation and some detail is asked for.

Which tech fails to be encompassed by the considerations of combat? The structure is outward motion follow up and inward motion follow up. The rest is all variation. Everything is the start of an "ideal phase"because there is no such thing, Its all basics and logic. But do tell, what part of Mr. Pakers considerations of combat fades in to wood smoke? And why ?
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

I thought it was all about Progress?

Progress? Being technique focused is not progress, its a specialization. BCB's "no techniques / no mistakes" is the same as "everythings the start of an ideal phase"; because, that also implies you haven't made a mistake. You are looking at the world through a great big pair of technique glasses, and feeling sorry for people that only train 100 techs as opposed to 156. It implies that those 300 tech people must really be onto something. Where the Bruce Lee heads when I need 'em?
Sean

 

[BlackCatBonz]

brother john
my statement simply implies that, even though you are learning hundreds of techniques, you are still limiting yourself by virtue of number of techniques.
you can have 10000 techniques but somewhere down the line.....maybe number five, you're just rehashing old news. sit back and look at what the technique is teaching, technique be damned. you should be able to defend yourself with any motion as long as you understand the principles governing that motion......if you dont learn the principles, you've learned nothing but a bunch of useless techniques.
there are thousands of cobs of corn in a cornfield.....but its all corn.

shawn

 

[BlackCatBonz]

sean
i think the only mistake would be starting a technique that one has learned by rote in a real situation and trying to follow through with it and it not working, and then standing there as you get socked in the teeth wondering what happened. ive seen this loads of times. a good aiki practitioner can show tons of techniques that work great in a lot of situations, but a great one wont be bound by technique.
learning techniques is NOT the way to technical understanding.....understand the principle behind its movement, and you're on your way.

shawn