Developing effective techniques

[rmcrobertson]

Sean, the way you keep ducking simple and straightforward questions is making it look as though either a) you don't know the answer, or b) you're selling snake oil. I assume that neither is true, so let me ask a third time:

What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?

I can tell you exactly how I teach, say, a typical first lesson to a beginner. I can tell you why I'm doing what I'm doing, and I can describe some situations in which I'd change things around a little--and right or wrong, I can tell you why I do that, too. I can also go up the ladder, describe some typical problems students have and discuss ways to fix them, discuss a typical group class and why it's taught that way. Hell, I can even reflect on my own training and discuss why I was taught the way I was taught. And I don't have to get into fancy language, either.

It's a lot like what I tell writing students: generalizations, cliches, moralism, all represent attempts to BS rather than to explain, to fill up the page rather than to learn and to discuss and to analyze---so, without the generalizations and cliches and moralisms, what exactly do you do to teach these "eight considerations," in, say, a first lesson for a beginner?

If you simply explain, we can discuss it. But, sorry, what you're producing is the impression that (for whatever reason), this is just nonsense....I assume that's not true, so could you just explain?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Sean, the way you keep ducking simple and straightforward questions is making it look as though either a) you don't know the answer, or b) you're selling snake oil. I assume that neither is true, so let me ask a third time:

What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?

I can tell you exactly how I teach, say, a typical first lesson to a beginner. I can tell you why I'm doing what I'm doing, and I can describe some situations in which I'd change things around a little--and right or wrong, I can tell you why I do that, too. I can also go up the ladder, describe some typical problems students have and discuss ways to fix them, discuss a typical group class and why it's taught that way. Hell, I can even reflect on my own training and discuss why I was taught the way I was taught. And I don't have to get into fancy language, either.

It's a lot like what I tell writing students: generalizations, cliches, moralism, all represent attempts to BS rather than to explain, to fill up the page rather than to learn and to discuss and to analyze---so, without the generalizations and cliches and moralisms, what exactly do you do to teach these "eight considerations," in, say, a first lesson for a beginner?

If you simply explain, we can discuss it. But, sorry, what you're producing is the impression that (for whatever reason), this is just nonsense....I assume that's not true, so could you just explain?

Robert,
Lets assume the cycle is a game and the object is to get the ball to fall through all the slots; its actualy how I have veiwed your ideal phase of every tech thing so I'll attempt to apply that to the cycle. Now just as in your even if phase, once the slots line up you then complete whatever tech conitions were favorable for. Its sort of the same with the cycle, except with the cycle, you keep going back to tweak whats wrong before you ever get to targets. If you duck a punch then you deal with that danger before targets again become an issue. This can be done by affecting the attitude (act like it hurt or act like it didn't) changing your position, manuevering, heck I not sure what else to say when you lumped it all into environment; so, I guess for your understanding, targets are not an issue until environmental conditions are favorable. However you seem to have discarded the rest of the cycle as inconsequencial as well... Those are your specifics. One major difference is that the cylcle is not an attempt to line up a tech, its an attempt to to survive from move to move. Any given tech would then contain multiple uses of the cycle. For some more than others.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm sorry, Sean, but that's not even remotely responsive to the question. It's exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said that you were producing the impression that a) you don't know, and b) the whole thing's just snake oil.

I asked exactly what you teach a student, and gave the example of a first lesson. OK, when I teach a beginner their first lesson, I pretty much follow Mr. Parker's 70s and 80s guidelines--and, for that matter, pretty much the classic way beginners are taught.

The goals are, first, to a) get a beginner used to being on the mat a little; b) start (only start) to develop their sense of a strong yet flexible base, c) introduce a basic punch, block, kick, d) if they're getting that, intro a first technique as a combination of basics, e) if at all possible, to encourage a beginner to feel a little of their own power.

So, I begin by teaching a decent step-out into a meditating horse stance, without necessarily explaining that I want them to start thinking about a) stance, b) directional harmony, c) marriage of gravity, and a few other concepts that I won't go into here. I tend to emphasize that they step out cleanly, get their hands up, tuck their toes in and get their head up most of all, so that they can start building a strong foundation in terms of stance and in terms of reaction to attacks. I have them step out from an attention stance several times, remarking that they want to practice this until they have some sense of it, before I go further, and I stare down at their feet a lot, to help make the point of stance, stance, stance. Then I....get the picture?

Now you can argue or disagree with the approach or whatever you want, but at least you can tell what the approach is--and, you can tell what specific ideas it's based on. Hell, if you want you can pretty much identify what sort of kenpo it is...

What I DON'T do is to throw a lot of theory at them (and this is a guy who studied literary and cultural theory at the grad level talking, so...), or, "just have them fight," or, "teach them principles," or whatever else will confuse the hell out of beginners.

By the way, Mr. Parker's first two considerations of combat are 1) acceptance, 2) environment--check "Inf. Insights." Could you explain how therse are a) confusing, b) inferior to the "cycle of consdierations," list?

This'll be my last post until you say something specific. I don't see the point in quarreling over explanations that don't explain a darn thing, and abstract theories whose connections to reality are not laid out.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

brother john
you hit the nail on the head........once again, my only beef with teaching from a technique base is that "some" not "all" people, get lost in the technique. thats why i said something along the lines of by the fifth technique you start rehashing.
now i do understand the fact that you need more than 5, simply because each individual will not necessarily "get" it if you show them one way
now i understand all about free sparring and experimentation........i was merely saying this, give a technique to work a principle from.....and then throw the technique out the window and see how a student applies the principle learned in the technique.
now i know some people might be guffawing at me right now and saying, "this guy is an a$$hole".
but more often than not a teacher will get caught up in this technique business, drill the techniques and forget to explain the finite details of the principle of application, i think we are on the same page here.
ive met a lot of guys who have their own smoke blowing up their own ****, and they would better like to yell and scream, rather than discuss something that doesnt fit in with their viewpoint....
cheers brother john!

shawn

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm sorry, Sean, but that's not even remotely responsive to the question. It's exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said that you were producing the impression that a) you don't know, and b) the whole thing's just snake oil.

I asked exactly what you teach a student, and gave the example of a first lesson. OK, when I teach a beginner their first lesson, I pretty much follow Mr. Parker's 70s and 80s guidelines--and, for that matter, pretty much the classic way beginners are taught.

The goals are, first, to a) get a beginner used to being on the mat a little; b) start (only start) to develop their sense of a strong yet flexible base, c) introduce a basic punch, block, kick, d) if they're getting that, intro a first technique as a combination of basics, e) if at all possible, to encourage a beginner to feel a little of their own power.

So, I begin by teaching a decent step-out into a meditating horse stance, without necessarily explaining that I want them to start thinking about a) stance, b) directional harmony, c) marriage of gravity, and a few other concepts that I won't go into here. I tend to emphasize that they step out cleanly, get their hands up, tuck their toes in and get their head up most of all, so that they can start building a strong foundation in terms of stance and in terms of reaction to attacks. I have them step out from an attention stance several times, remarking that they want to practice this until they have some sense of it, before I go further, and I stare down at their feet a lot, to help make the point of stance, stance, stance. Then I....get the picture?

Now you can argue or disagree with the approach or whatever you want, but at least you can tell what the approach is--and, you can tell what specific ideas it's based on. Hell, if you want you can pretty much identify what sort of kenpo it is...

What I DON'T do is to throw a lot of theory at them (and this is a guy who studied literary and cultural theory at the grad level talking, so...), or, "just have them fight," or, "teach them principles," or whatever else will confuse the hell out of beginners.

By the way, Mr. Parker's first two considerations of combat are 1) acceptance, 2) environment--check "Inf. Insights." Could you explain how therse are a) confusing, b) inferior to the "cycle of consdierations," list?

This'll be my last post until you say something specific. I don't see the point in quarreling over explanations that don't explain a darn thing, and abstract theories whose connections to reality are not laid out.

Well for one thing you aren't paying me enough to publicly teach what we teach our students. When I get a chance I will privately discuss this with you. By the way acceptance is combat specific, and attitude is "always" first. Think of it a broadening the defenition.
Sean
PS It appears you do not accept Private messages feel free to E - mail me a [email protected] or not.

 

[GAB]

Hi Kai,

So that is what you got out of what I said?

OK.

Regards, Gary

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sean, that's unadulterated ********.

Knowledge should be available to anyone who's willing to work for it--and what's more, the petty little clutching of one's precious (yes, Gollum...down) secrets flies in the face of the fact that there ARE no goddamn secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we keep from ourselves and from our students.

If you were taught to say that sort of thing, you were taught badly. If you've come up with it on your own, you've gone way, way off the beam.

I'm not paying you a darn thing--and you aren't paying me, and yet oddly, I'm perfectly willing to describe what I do when I teach--at any level. Know why? First off, because it's like cross-country skiing--the trail's there for everybody, yet after the first half-mile, it's empty. Second off, because it's how I was taught--by people who were generous with their expertise and their time, and who stuck me with the obligation of trying to do likewise.

And there's another reason that what you're saying is ********. I've been teaching for quite a long time now, and you know what? It's always the petty people--whether in kollege or in kenpo--who clutch what they know to their breast, and make squeaking noises when other people ask them to share. You know why? Because generally speaking, they don't have anything serious to share, and they don't want others to find out.

Sorry, man, but as a professional teacher I am deeply offended. And, I might add--as an intellectual type, I can recognize ******** when I read it. Ah yes...I would demonstrate my ESP, but your doubt has disturbed the astral plane...I cannot explain the Path, each being must Walk the Path for Themselves...For Lo, you must dDop and Give Me Pushups, for Thou hast Come to the Table before Thy Master...

Sorry, again, but I'd genuinely thought that you simply were trained differently, and I was interested to find out what you knew. You've convinced me otherwise.

 

[bzarnett]

What exactly are these eight no nine considerations--not just names, but meanings--and how exactly do you teach them to students?

Summary:

1. Attitude - the arrange of your body our your opponent's body. Your mental and emotional position in relationship to your environment, predicament, and other individuals. Acceptance that danger exists. Acceptance that you are in a confrontation are aspects of attitude. It's the greater principle.

2. Environment - what is in, on, and around you. How does the two big macs sitting in the pit of your stomach effect you. You have a wall to your left and behind you. It's icy outside on your winter street.

3. DSA - Dimensional stages of action. What stage of action are you? Do you have to close the gap? Are you in a critical distance for contact penetration? What about your opponent? Is my opponent in range and I'm not?

4. Positions - how I or my opponent arrange our bodies. The "Ground Game" would be a positional element. I am on the ground and my opponent is on top of me. My opponent grabs me from the side.

5. Manuevers - how I interact with my opponent using foot and body manuevers. This includes stance shifts.

6. Targets - part of economy of motion (choose the best target, the best weapon, at the best angle in the least amount of time to create a desired effect). What is the effect I want? Do I want to take out my opponent's foundation? Do I need to anatomically position him? What is the effect I need?

7. Weapons - what natural, man-made, or environmental weapon am I going to use to hit my target. What fits the target? I want to strike so what weapon do I have that allows for contact penetration?

8. Angle - angle of execution, angle of incidence, etc. The angles I need to create a desired effect.

9. Cover - after the situation has been controlled (or I think it has) and I have stopped my opponent (or I think I have) I cover. Do I need to re-engage? Perhaps.

All of this stuff is described in the Infinite Insights series and the Encylopedia. In some circumstances, the higher level principle was used. For example "Attitude" over "Acceptance".

There are other helpful tips in the manuals - the ones that describe the themes, what-ifs, etc. (like seen in Volume 5. of Infinite Insights).

Use of the Cycle of Considerations/Prepartory Considerations are key in fully understanding the What-If scenarios in Kenpo techniques (IMHO).

Just some thoughts. In regards to teaching? Do you have something specific?

Bryan

 

[Brother John]

Robert,
Lets assume the cycle is a game and the object is to get the ball to fall through all the slots; its actualy how I have veiwed your ideal phase of every tech thing so I'll attempt to apply that to the cycle. Now just as in your even if phase, once the slots line up you then complete whatever tech conitions were favorable for. Its sort of the same with the cycle, except with the cycle, you keep going back to tweak whats wrong before you ever get to targets. If you duck a punch then you deal with that danger before targets again become an issue. This can be done by affecting the attitude (act like it hurt or act like it didn't) changing your position, manuevering, heck I not sure what else to say when you lumped it all into environment; so, I guess for your understanding, targets are not an issue until environmental conditions are favorable. However you seem to have discarded the rest of the cycle as inconsequencial as well... Those are your specifics. One major difference is that the cylcle is not an attempt to line up a tech, its an attempt to to survive from move to move. Any given tech would then contain multiple uses of the cycle. For some more than others.
Sean

I must admit Sean
You really threw me with this one. I've read it several times now and I really don't understand your point, what you are getting at or.......anything. I don't know if it's just me or what, but I'd like to try to understand your position... so could you please clarify: what is your point?
Thanks

Your Brother
John

 

[GAB]

OK Shawn-
Listen, I was getting all snide with you before and dismissing your point out of hand. I’ll grow up now and stop that in the interest of trying to understand one another…which in the end I think helped Robert and I understand each other better. So, apology having been given, lets move on and discuss.

What both you and Todd have talked about is both on the mark and off of it. Here’s what I mean. I think that when you said
“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.”
You are correct. If we learn the techniques and think “Now I KNOW what I’ll do when attacked in these ways.” We’d be in error, and a good instructor would tell us so. Where you, I believe, are incorrect is in assuming that that is in fact what we are doing. It is not. To do so would be foolish. Mr. Parker seems to have enjoyed the analogy between learning Kenpo and learning to speak another language. I do too, and I think it lends itself well to this issue.

If I were to try to teach you Japanese and I gave you lessons that contained 1000 of the most common Japanese phrases… you’d learn a bit of Japanese, but you’d not become ‘fluent’. If someone spoke to you in Japan and phrased it in an ‘uncommon way’, you’d be thrown for a loop. You’d still sound VERY much like a tourist. If I gave you lessons based on 10o,000 of the most common Japanese phrases, same deal; you’d have a better vocabulary but not a better usage thereof; you’d not be able to really express yourself well in the language…no one would ever claim that you were ‘well spoken & persuasive‘ in Japanese. IF however I gave you 500 of the most common phrases AND taught you their rules of grammar and syntax…etc.; then had you study and rearrange parts of the phrases to be able to make new phrases of your own…in other words, IF I taught you how to formulate your own phrases and made you practice doing so over and over in varying situations and with different shades of nuance…THEN you could become fluent. You may still need to increase your vocabulary…but that’d come with time and experience. THIS, in my mind, is very similar to the use of techniques in American Kenpo!

If I teach you 1000 of the best techniques against 250 of the most common types of attacks… you’d probably be able to move in those techniques just fine…but you’d not be “fluent”, the ramming speed of combat and the adrenal surge it gives plus the amazing amount of variables that enter into the circumstances of actual combat would trip you up, present you with something that you didn’t expect or fell outside the bounds of your 1000 techniques. You’d be the stammering dumbfounded tourist in Japan again.

IF I teach you 100,000 techniques against the 1000 most common types of attacks…NOW I’ve actually made matters worse. Instead of only a few to choose from, now you’d have to search through the huge compendium of techs in your head to find ‘the right one’, and even now…there may not be one. You’d lose. Period.

IF however, I give you 150 techniques against 15 of the most common types of attacks…and then teach you HOW they work and WHY they work…and make you practice rearranging them in different ways to meet different needs in the flow of action…THEN you’d be ‘fluid & fluent’.

You see Shawn, the techniques are a point of reference… given to us to be able to understand how to meet the needs of the moment in many different contexts and circumstances. Their purpose, as you accurately stated, is as a vehicle for us to be able to know what works and why…to be able to internalize the principles and make use of the concepts that make these things function well…and then to be able to manipulate them spontaneously in order best adapt to the needs of …..whatever. The techniques aren’t there for us to execute verbatim from the belt manuals. Being able to simply regurgitate a ‘by the book’ technique is not what will save our keester in the heat of a fight… it will be our ability to adapt in the ways we have been trained. The list of techniques, no matter 32-24-16 or 5 per belt, are sequential lessons… a structure so that we can pass along the understanding that they contain. Without the structure….we are guessing. But the techniques aren’t the answer, they are the question. It’s what we do with them that makes us better able to adapt and survive.

Besides, there’s a lot more than JUST self-defense techniques in what we do in American Kenpo. There are forms, sets, freestyle techs, freestyle sparing, two man drills, weapons, weapon sets, weapon drills, weapon techniques…let alone all of the myriad ways that our instructors can take simple combinations of basics and work us up and down the floor for a good workout. Even the “8 considerations” are nothing more than a conceptual paradigm, a lens through which to view the entire curriculum and practice of Kenpo.

I hope I’m being clear, I get awfully wordy sometimes.
I hope we can discuss this more.

Your Brother
John

Hi John,

Your take on this is very astute, I also enjoyed the signature on this one.
It is something to be able to put into words what you are thinking.
I know that is a simple statement, but its very correct in this particular post and then with the signature, like I said, well done.

I understand that a compliment from me is not much, but I enjoyed this post very much.

Thanks for the lesson.

Regards, Gary

 

[Brother John]

Hi John,

Your take on this is very astute, I also enjoyed the signature on this one.
It is something to be able to put into words what you are thinking.
I know that is a simple statement, but its very correct in this particular post and then with the signature, like I said, well done.

I understand that a compliment from me is not much, but I enjoyed this post very much.
Thanks for the lesson.
Regards, Gary

Hey Gary-
A compliment from a gentleman is always appreciated! Thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed my jabber.
It makes me smile that you considered me astute...
this world needs more 'stutes'

Your Brother
John

 

[GAB]

Hi,

I would just like to offer this.

In Kosho the use of the eight fold path, the octogon, and the four directional folds of the body.

These are the terms that Hanshi Bruce uses in his book, Kosho Ryu Kempo,
'The last Disciple"

I have read quite a few of the books that the late SGMEP wrote, how many of you have read the book I just referred to?

I believe this discussion is a good one, it conveys the essence of critical thought.

I really believe that when giving out information we take and try to convey it as our own way of thinking, based on the reading and the knowledge you possess, experience and other numerous considerations that all go into each and everyone of us.

In the Marine Corps. They taught you what they thought, you needed to know, on how to win the battle, that you might be in if going to war, or other such things.

The knowledge and the effort they put you through, the grinder, the intense training, the breaking down, the rebuilding. If it was your muscles responding to growing bigger and stronger, or your mind, which is not quite as easy to observe.

This is where, I believe the martial and the civilian teaching differ. Obvious huh. Not really.
We who have been there and done that look at life different, then others who have not.
That does not mean much, and some will take it out of context, but the making up of the man or person you want at your side when times get rough
is very complicated.

The same as what goes into making up the person you want to be in your school, and the ability to read them and know what to teach them on a personal level, these are things that Hanshi Bruce teaches.

So everyperson who is learning from him is not learning the same.

Why? Because everyone is different. So now he has programs that are personalized.

Everyone has the basics. Just like in the Corps.

If you are a cook or a tailor or a truck driver you have to go through the 'Basics'.

Then you go on to learn what you as an individual can and will be the best for the Corps. They send you where they think you are needed, to serve them the Corps and not you.

This is the Same in Law Enforcement and the same in Hanshi Bruce's program.

After reading Roberts last post I feel he is a very good teacher, maybe even excellent comes to mind.

Thanks for sharing the information and the lessons in your post Robert.

That does not mean we will agree or not, but it does put a different perspective on how I will view this person.

The only thing I ask of others is to look at what Hanshi Bruce is trying to teach and not at the other BS.

Read his books as well.

To become a professor of anything, you must be well read and have gone through the system.
Whether it is the system of hard knocks or the system, that our Government has tried to set up for us, to learn.

Elementary, Junior and Senior High. Going on to college is also much more available to the 'commoner, underpriviliged, poor, etc.

I am enjoying this Thread very much. Thanks again for the lesson's and the insight.

Last but not least, Hanshi Bruce reminds us that the best Self Defense is 'Peace and Harmony'.
If you are going to war or not you must be ready for it.

That is the bottom line, being ready, does not mean you have got to fight all the time to prove it, it just means you need to have the knowledge to be able to do it, and the ability. Some do, some don't.

If you have not read Hanshi's Books and received his information, how can you compare your information.

I have read both Parker's, and Juchnik's, have you.

It is like going to school the next day and not reading the chapter you were told would be discussed in the class.

Just my, Rambling thoughts, etc.

Regards, Gary

 

[The Kai]

Gab

Yes I own the books you are referring to

So if you want to talk about the 8 angles let me know

If a program is taught on concepts and principles it cannot be personalized, per se.
Todd

 

[Touch Of Death]

Sean, that's unadulterated ********.

Knowledge should be available to anyone who's willing to work for it--and what's more, the petty little clutching of one's precious (yes, Gollum...down) secrets flies in the face of the fact that there ARE no goddamn secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we keep from ourselves and from our students.

If you were taught to say that sort of thing, you were taught badly. If you've come up with it on your own, you've gone way, way off the beam.

I'm not paying you a darn thing--and you aren't paying me, and yet oddly, I'm perfectly willing to describe what I do when I teach--at any level. Know why? First off, because it's like cross-country skiing--the trail's there for everybody, yet after the first half-mile, it's empty. Second off, because it's how I was taught--by people who were generous with their expertise and their time, and who stuck me with the obligation of trying to do likewise.

And there's another reason that what you're saying is ********. I've been teaching for quite a long time now, and you know what? It's always the petty people--whether in kollege or in kenpo--who clutch what they know to their breast, and make squeaking noises when other people ask them to share. You know why? Because generally speaking, they don't have anything serious to share, and they don't want others to find out.

Sorry, man, but as a professional teacher I am deeply offended. And, I might add--as an intellectual type, I can recognize ******** when I read it. Ah yes...I would demonstrate my ESP, but your doubt has disturbed the astral plane...I cannot explain the Path, each being must Walk the Path for Themselves...For Lo, you must dDop and Give Me Pushups, for Thou hast Come to the Table before Thy Master...

Sorry, again, but I'd genuinely thought that you simply were trained differently, and I was interested to find out what you knew. You've convinced me otherwise.

Excuse me, but its not my place to tell you what the students are taught when they walk in the door. Its not my school. I am respecting others. And "no" ,our lesson plan is not bound by a "should be available" clause. If you think attitude and acceptance are the same, so be it. We teach differently (that was free). If you are teaching that they are the same, there is no use in selling it; so, it might as well be free; because only those told the "force" is strong in them would buy it. Now I will, however, paraphrase a lesson so you will calm down. Lets just say you want to maintain a state of well being, even when under attack. For every fraction of an instant that goes by this is compromised, either intentionaly or unintentionaly. Now by considering the possibilities and the roadblocks that occur, you are then constantly cycling through avery short list of concerns.(for this excercise we'll call them... oh, I don't know ...considerations) This is not a combat excercise, its a way of life. Cover does not mean you are done with the tech and are crossing out, although it certainly could in that instance on a broader scale. So, a lesson plan would be, "survive in this manner". Now that I mention it I suppose the cycle of considerations would be more like a game of "snakes and latters" instead of the pinball y'all are teaching. What are some ways to enhance survival?... lets see: attitude, logic, basics, and fitness. The list I just described are the parameters defining your thinking and your actions. You might even say they are the laws of the fist.(feel free to shorten that to LAW OF THE FIST or you may even call it Kenpo if you want to get all sentimental for the oriental culture Mr. Parker was exposed to in Hawaii) One thing we don't do, is start teaching them "Delayed Sword". Hope that helps.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

So to quote "The Core," my best guess is, you don't know.

For the fourth time: I am asking what you teach students to do, PHYSICALLY, not theoretically.

To quote, "Blade Runner," "We're physical."

Thanks, bzarnet, for the explanation. I see that these Considerations are, as I thought, virtually identical to Mr. Parker's list, which are available to anyone in "Infinite Insights."

I am afraid, however, that I am quite baffled by the evasions. Why wouldn't it be one's "place," to explain? How does what sure looks like armchair kenpo actually work to teach students?

It should be easy for any teacher to describe a typical lesson at different levels, to discuss rationales, to explain the history of teaching that way, to reflect upon their own training and understanding. Not to be able to do so--and to try and paper over such a set of mistakes by suggesting that Here There Be Big Secrets--is a good chunk of what's wrong with kenpo these days.

Come on, Sean--just a beginner's lesson. Describe one; what actually do you teach? What do you expect a student to do? Why? How's what you teach tied to the development of kenpo? What have you learned by teaching? What holes do you see in your own PHYSICAL practice?

Knowledge is democratic, in the sense that Chaucer advocated when he approvingly described his Clerk in the "Canterbury Tales," as a man who would gladly learn and gladly teach. Knowledge is elitist, in that only some people are willing to pay for knowledge, and I ain't talking 'bout money, neither.

But there are no secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we try to keep or refuse to look at.

Or to put this another way, borrowing from my own teacher--REAL confidence is based on the development of skill. It doesn't come just from walking up to a student and saying: "Here...I give you confidence."

 

[Touch Of Death]

So to quote "The Core," my best guess is, you don't know.

For the fourth time: I am asking what you teach students to do, PHYSICALLY, not theoretically.

To quote, "Blade Runner," "We're physical."

Thanks, bzarnet, for the explanation. I see that these Considerations are, as I thought, virtually identical to Mr. Parker's list, which are available to anyone in "Infinite Insights."

I am afraid, however, that I am quite baffled by the evasions. Why wouldn't it be one's "place," to explain? How does what sure looks like armchair kenpo actually work to teach students?

It should be easy for any teacher to describe a typical lesson at different levels, to discuss rationales, to explain the history of teaching that way, to reflect upon their own training and understanding. Not to be able to do so--and to try and paper over such a set of mistakes by suggesting that Here There Be Big Secrets--is a good chunk of what's wrong with kenpo these days.

Come on, Sean--just a beginner's lesson. Describe one; what actually do you teach? What do you expect a student to do? Why? How's what you teach tied to the development of kenpo? What have you learned by teaching? What holes do you see in your own PHYSICAL practice?

Knowledge is democratic, in the sense that Chaucer advocated when he approvingly described his Clerk in the "Canterbury Tales," as a man who would gladly learn and gladly teach. Knowledge is elitist, in that only some people are willing to pay for knowledge, and I ain't talking 'bout money, neither.

But there are no secrets in kenpo, except for the ones we try to keep or refuse to look at.

Or to put this another way, borrowing from my own teacher--REAL confidence is based on the development of skill. It doesn't come just from walking up to a student and saying: "Here...I give you confidence."

Allright damnit, we teach a new student margin for error. are you happy? In relation to the cycle, that and proper methods of execution pretty much covers the physical aspecs of training. A stable base give you MFO ect.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ok if its so easy, why would you have a student fight on the inside as opposed to outside? and why would you have them step forward instead of back? Why start with your hands down instead of up? What do you tell your students??? And don't say catagory completion.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, I didn't know there'd be a quiz. I guess trying to deflect the question back is easier than actually explaining how the lessons are done, and why, eh?

1. You don't teach a student to "fight on the inside," in some abstract sense at all, because fighting isn't abstract. This is why there are techniques like Five Swords.

2. You don't abstractly teach a student to step forward instead of back (advance rather than retreat, gee, did I get it right?)--you teach them the old yellow belt techs, then you teach the oranges; you teach Short Form 1, which retreats; you teach Short Form 2, which advances.

3. You don't maunder on about hands up, hands down; you work through the system (at yellow belt: Delayed Sword, hands down; Deflecting Hammer, hands/guard up) and, having established basic binary oppositions, you wait until such opportune moments as Circling Windmills to explain what they've been working on all along, rather than being so damn impressed with your own knowledge/so worried you don't really know that you lumber the poor student with all sorts of irrelevant theory.

4. I tell my students they should practice, so that they learn solid self-defense and do not fall prey to every snake-oil salesman who rolls through town in a wagon.

Is all of this a complete discussion? Not by any means; just a sketch of a beginning. Oh, and incidentally--I've NEVER had anything in kenpo explained to me as just, "category completion." Get the bark on the right tree, willya?

Gee, Sean, still waiting to hear exact descriptions of what it is that you do when you teach, and when you learn. Funny how those never seem to be forthcoming...can I see the Perpetual Motion Machine? uh....no...it's being repaired...can you demonstrate Therapeutic Touch?...uh, no...your cynicism destroys my link to my chi...

 

[bzarnett]

One reason for teaching something like Five Swords is in relationship to the Cycle of Considerations/Preparatory Considerations - time and environment.

The attack of Five swords is where our opponent throws a right roundhouse punch toward our face. That is the attack. If we examine this in terms of COC/PC, we first have the attitude/acceptance thing (get back to this later). We than have a look at our environment. For 5 swords, our environment does not allow us to move backwards or to the outside of our opponent's punch thus we move forward and to the inside of the punch. Our dimensional stage of action is "contact penetration." Some of the what-ifs of this technique can be based on what-if my opponent is in contact (versus contact penetration) or what-if my opponent is at contact manipulation. What if my opponent is in contact penetration and I am in contact, etc.

The COC/PC help us intelligently formulate or graft appropriatly.

When I teach a new student this material my expectation is that they understand that it exists (COC/PC), and that they interpret it as a tool to better manage a confrontation extemporaneously. They might be able to name all the elements but they might not be able to pull it off. Over the next few levels we introduce a variety of aspects.

So how do I teach environment? Well some basic examples would be:

1. Provide environmental limitations during the execution of a technique. For example, you can't move off the blue area. Or place them in a corner, etc.

2. Provide environmental objects that they might trip over or hinder there ability to manuever (kicking shields, etc.). Maybe I drop down a weapon.

3. We get them dressed up in there non-workout clothing and see what they can do. Maybe we get them engaged without and warm-up to see how there muscles react (Arnica gel/oil is important here). How about telling everyone to eat a big bowl of Pasta or 3 Big Macs and try a few things out? Have a headache? Work on twirling sacrafice and see how it goes?

DSA is even more fun. The number one training drill for this? Contact. Even at yellow belt have them start to make contact. Let them get the feel of when they are in contact penetration or contact or out of contact altogether.

The COC/PC are part of the core Theme/attack in the self-defense techniques.

As a cool exercise, list out a bunch of techniques and have your students determine:

1. The Environmental Conditions
2. The initial dimensional stage of action (for you and your opponent)
3. The positions you are in
4. What manuevers do you need to execute to be in critical distance.

Cheers,
Bryan

 

[BlackCatBonz]

1. You don't teach a student to "fight on the inside," in some abstract sense at all, because fighting isn't abstract. This is why there are techniques like Five Swords.

fighting isnt abstract? since when.
again with the technique.
it sounds like you're trying to fit everything into a neat categorized package, fighting isnt neat and A+B does not always equal C.
the only thing that you can count on in a self defense situation is that an opponent will attack you naturally and from multiple attack angles. practicing a technique from a single attack angle has no basis in reality, other than trying to build up speed and accuracy.
a great teacher once said, "speed is bull$hit, timing is of the essence."
developing timing is much harder than developing speed......hitting someone 5 or 6 times in one second is useless.......with timing, one hit is all it should take.
a car doesnt have to run over a person 5 or 6 times to get the job done.

shawn