Developing effective techniques

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Once upon a time there was a thread titled "are all these techniques really necessary?" Several people made some excellent posts. That thread got sidetracked and is now locked. I think that the thread had some excellent stuff that is worth pursuing. So...

How do you develop effective techniques?

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

This is a very old question. To answer it, one must answer a few other questions and examine some assumptions.

What differentiates Kenpo from Japanese/Okinawan Karate? There are several things: including A) theories, principles, vocabulary; B) a larger alphabet of motion and vocabulary of techniques, C) and technique practice. Let me discuss each of these:
A) Kenpo principles are a great innovation enabling the Kenpoist to have a better understanding of motion and self-defense—a truly significant innovation. Can you learn the theories, principles, and vocabulary without all of the Kenpo techniques? Yes.
B) Kenpo provides techniques for just a tremendous variety of stand-up situations.
This is another great Kenpo innovation. Can you have Kenpo’s larger alphabet and repertoire without all of those techniques? No.
C) Kenpo’s greatest innovation over traditional Japanese/Okinawan Karate is technique practice. In the traditional Karate training I’ve seen, techniques are limited to Kata practice. Partner self-defense technique is usually no-contact, very rudimentary, and with little or no application of principles. While you could argue that Kenpo principles can be taught with a smaller technique list, Kenpo’s repertoire could not be taught and Kenpo technique practice would be diminished by a limited repertoire.

What differentiates Kenpo from stand-up sport combatives such as boxing, kick-boxing, and Muay Thai? There are several things: A) ring vs street focus, B) training methodology, and C) repertoire of techniques.
A) Kenpo’s street focus means that Kenpo progress is measured via the awarding of belts after a subjective measurement of proficiency in principles and repertoire. Sport combatives measure performance via ring-records.
B) The training methods differ to support the measurement criteria and objectives of the art/sport.
C) The repertoire of techniques is perhaps the key differentiator driving the difference in measurement of proficiency and in training method. Kenpo includes many “deadly” and “dangerous” techniques that cannot be practiced full-force. These dangerous techniques include strikes to the eye, throat, groin, and joints. Sport combatives have rules prohibiting these dangerous moves thus limiting their repertoire. Because the dangerous moves are removed, sport combatives can train full-power against resisting partners. The sport-combatives training method is an innovation over and above Kenpo’s technique training. All of the stand-up sport comabitives have a very limited technique repertoire but train very effectively with their repertoire. No one questions the punching or kicking prowess of a professional fighter. Boxers and kickboxers would argue: No, all those Kenpo techniques are not necessary.

What differentiates grappling sport combatives such as Wrestling, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu from striking sport combatives? Injuries are more common in striking combatives compared to grappling combatives. It would be rare for a boxer or kickboxer to spar for 30-minutes or an hour 4 or 5 days a week the way Grapplers do. Grappling sport combatives have a much larger repertoire of techniques than boxing and kickboxing. The lower injury rate facilitates the greater training time and the practice of a greater number of techniques with a partner. I would argue that grappling styles have an even larger repertoire of techniques than Kenpo. Grapplers might argue that Kenpo doesn’t have too many techniques – they might even argue that Kenpo does not have enough techniques!

This leads to the final and most important question: What differentiates Kenpo technique training from Grappling technique training? Both grappling styles and Kenpo have a huge repertoire of techniques designed to protect against most every situation. The training method is the difference. Kenpo innovated over Karate by allowing techniques to be practiced independently from Kata. Kenpo further innovated by allowing contact on a cooperative Uke. Kenpo has missed the sport combative innovation of practicing the entire repertoire of techniques against a fully resisting opponent who is simultaneously trying to execute techniques and defeat you.

So, in conclusion: the question of whether there are too many techniques in Kenpo is not the right question. The right question is this: Does Kenpo’s technique training method enable the Kenpoist to learn to apply the principles and execute techniques in a realistic combat situation. And that should be the subject of further discussion..

 

[Michael Billings]

... and an excellent proposition!!

I will start the ball rolling by pointing out there are different levels of resistance with training partners. Although it does not consistantly rise to the level of what grapplers deal with every class or competition, it is possible to have a much more resistant uki that you attribute.

Note that the FIST gear or Red Man suits allow full contact except to the head, and you can still have pretty liberal contact. The suits do restrict range of motion, but definitly give you the immediate feedback about whether your techniques work. You can then alternate with an unpadded partner and limit the contact, while getting more realistic "reactions" to strikes to vital targets. Even this drill incurrs some injury, primarily bruises to the torso when you "pick it up."

The suits are expensive to say the least. But Brown through 3rd Black I was tested with an opponent in gear and had to "make" the techniques work at power and speed. It is an awakening if you have only worked with a compliant or slightly resistant buddy.

 

[Ender]

Well what do you recommend to enable the Kenpoist to learn to apply the principles and execute techniques ??

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I recommend a combination of "traditional" Kenpo technique training, Karate sparring, drills where the attack is unknown or unplanned, and "alive" training where the uke does not cooperate but instead resists and fights back.

 

[Touch Of Death]

We work ideas like picking different beats of a technique to have your opponent work his tech on you. Part of the benefit is that you are no longer at the ready position waiting to be attacked. In fact the whole standing with your feet toguether with your arms at you side thing is a big no no in our school. We let the guys down the street teach that.
Sean

 

[satans.barber]

Have any of you ever trained with someone who's offered to let you do a technique on them properly (or one each maybe)? Some people are fairly unhinged, I could imagine someone saying 'just do it' and letting you pull off a full technique - I guess that'd let you know for real if a technique was effective or not!

Pretty dangerous though!

Ian.

 

[MJS]

I feel that if you want to develop good tech. then you need to be able to apply them with some contact. Of course, you always here people say, "Well, if there is too much contact, then the student is gonna leave!" People that sign up for MA lessons, should be told up front that there WILL be contact. The MA's are not for everyone. If someone doesnt think that they can handle the contact, then they should find another activity!

Of course, you want to have control to an extent. If you and your partner are always getting hurt, then your injuries are going to prevent you from continuing the training.

Apply a choke or grab with enough force and resistance to give it that "real" feeling. For punching, put on some hand protection and try to hit the person. If you train yourself with that realism, then if you need to defend yourself on the street, where someone is really trying to take your head off, your body and mind will be conditioned enough to respond properly to the attack!

Mike

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by MJS
I feel that if you want to develop good tech. then you need to be able to apply them with some contact.

Of course, you want to have control to an extent. If you and your partner are always getting hurt, then your injuries are going to prevent you from continuing the training.
Mike

I agree on both points.
As both of my instructors have taught me, if you train by stopping your punch before much contact... you'll get really really good at missing.
But how much contact and when. That's a very important detail, and not one that you can exactly pin down to a belt level (generally). But for argument sake, I'd say that a beginer should show control by only ending up with a touch, intermediate students with a good 'smack' and advanced more than that... but short of making things crunch.
Hows that for scientific?:rofl:
Just a thought...
what do you guys think???
Your Brother
John

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Brother John
I agree on both points.
As both of my instructors have taught me, if you train by stopping your punch before much contact... you'll get really really good at missing.
But how much contact and when. That's a very important detail, and not one that you can exactly pin down to a belt level (generally). But for argument sake, I'd say that a beginer should show control by only ending up with a touch, intermediate students with a good 'smack' and advanced more than that... but short of making things crunch.
Hows that for scientific?:rofl:
Just a thought...
what do you guys think???
Your Brother
John

Sounds good to me!!!

Mike

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I think it is important to start contact from the very beginning. Beginners need to develop confidence in making contact to the body ASAP. They also need to develop confidence and composure receiving body shots ASAP. Control to the head, groin, spine, and joints must be exercised in order to avoid injury at all ranks.

That control is one of the key dilemas of Kenpo training. Can we really develop effective techniques without the contact? We can develop effective body shots by practicing contact. We can develop effective head shots by sparring training. However, it is difficult to know if joint locks/breaks, claws, and gouges really work because they can never be trained with hard contact.

We would require Brown and Black belts to do techniques with controlled eye-strikes stopped jsut in front of the face. We would also require them to do the strikes contacting the eyebrow or cheek. Claws were required to slap the face hard. That way, we could simulate the movements.

Again, contact vs control on dangerous strikes is a key dilema in Kenpo technique training for which there is no perfect solution. I'd be happy to hear others opinions.

 

[twinkletoes]

I agree, and beginners should not just be introduced to contact, but also to resistance. There are too many instructors out there that are not training against resistance.

Instead of finding someone who will LET you do a tech. full out on them, find someone who is willing to try to STOP you from doing your tech, and willing to get hit full out in the process. Then see what develops.

The irony of the kenpo development is that when Ed Parker and his students were developing the techniques, they were canonizing they successful approaches. In making them scripted, the took away the process of development from future generations of students. Now people have pre-contrived answers handed to them, on the supposition that they work. It was the development phase, not the product, that brought them such skills. We are trying to become da Vinci by tracing the Mona Lisa.

~TT

 

[twinkletoes]

Oh, and I almost forgot.

Techniques seem to be used to introduce tactics, by being examples of principles and strategies. Certainly effective techniques should use only the most effective principles. It seems to me that tactics have gotten confused over the years via all these techniques that are unrealistic or meant to teach some obscure principle. Overall, it has lead away from useful principle. Maybe we need to spend some time exploring "truth in combat" before we know what we should be teaching in our techniques.

~TT

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

TT: Amen.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
Maybe we need to spend some time exploring "truth in combat" before we know what we should be teaching in our techniques.

~TT

I don't want to learn true combat. OI only want to learn self defense, and if I learn some sparring along the way, great! But that's not the reason most people do kenpo (combat).
If you want true combat go to the military and ask them to send you to Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan...

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
I don't want to learn true combat. OI only want to learn self defense, and if I learn some sparring along the way, great! But that's not the reason most people do kenpo (combat).
If you want true combat go to the military and ask them to send you to Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan...

I think what TT is saying is that we should know what is going to work/not work as far as defending ourselves goes, before teaching it to students. We all have different goals in the arts, and I'm not knocking you for your goals.

There is alot that is taught, that would probably get the person using it killed before it would save their life. IMO, SD, not matter how you sugar coat it, is fighting. If someone attacks you, and you defend yourself, you are fighting.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, so please feel free to give input!

Mike

 

[Kenpomachine]

True, self defense is fighting in a way. But combat is a fighting you were looking for and wanted, and self defense is a survival fight.

You may think that kenpo techniques doesn't work. But I read somewhere that Parker and his student working for law enforcement bodies and as security men tested most of the curricula life.

Paul Mills worked in a night club in Vegas and had to deal with bullies, and there's plenty of law enforcement personnel training kenpo. Tell them that their techniques don't work and they'll be laughing hard.

If the techniques don't work for you, then try to do them with hard contact on your cooperative partner, unexpected. See the reaction, see how it went. If it didn't work, then you have some problem with the technique.

I have many problems with different techniques. Some of them are applying the locks correctly, some others are that I consider some attacks silly and I thus work the technique with prejudices. Some of my stances are not so stable as I should make them.

But it's my fault, not the techniques. And it's nothing training won't arrange

 

[twinkletoes]

kenpomachine,

It seems we are using the same terms differently again. I will avoid the word 'combat', because some people think of it differently. I think we should use a word that you just introduced. I like it.

Let's use a word that we all think of in the same way: survival.

Survival is doing whatever it takes to be the one left standing after a violent encounter. Survival is about avoidance and awareness in the early stages, walking, talking, and running away as it escalates, and doing whatever is necessary to end a dangerous situation once it has developed.

My goal in "self defense training" is survival. I want to be the one who walks (runs) away of his own free will, if a situation develops that far.

So what methods should be used to train for survival?

1) Awareness and avoidance. We need to address recognizing a situation that could develop into violence.

2) De-escalation. We need to find ways around a situation (walk, talk, or run). We need to defuse a situation that is getting hot.

3) The actual fight stage. We need to have tactics that address the combative stage of the situation, allowing us to escape the situation as successfully as possible.

Now, you have said something VERY correct in your last post, and I want to highlight it. You said "It's nothing training won't arrange." This is dead-on, 100% correct. It's ALL about the training.

99% of the effectiveness of an art is not the curriculum, it's the training. (I will touch on the other 1% in a second).

Let's say you train Muay Thai, or BJJ, or wrestling, but you never train it against a resisting opponent. Your training will, undoubtedly, not prepare you to use your style against another person. You will lack any and all ability to use your art under fire. To say it plainly, it will not work. I don't care how many hours of shadowboxing or shadow-wrestling you went through, and how many thousand armlocks you did on your practice dummy, or how many times you kicked the heavy bag, you will still lack the skills necessary (timing and distancing, among others) to use these against someone who is fighting back.

Now, let's say you take ANY art, from Tai Chi to Tae Kwon Do, and you train it fully against resistance (free resistance, not scripted resistance) all the time. You let your partner try to stop you, and you work on the techniques until you can pull them off against anyone, no matter what they do. Will it matter what style you do? Not much. And you will be able to employ the techniques consistently, in the face of a dynamic, changing, and reisisting environment. You will have usable skills.

Now, the last 1% is in the curriculum. In doing all that alive training, you will find that you only use certain things, and there are certain things that are very low percentage techniques (if they are EVER applicable). I'm sure you can think of arts that have moves that, for these purposes, are pretty useless. What should those people do? Should they adapt their curriculum around what really has application? I am inclined to say so.

So our suggestion now is to test all of it, in this alive format, with heavy resistance, until each of us experiences firsthand what works (for you, for your students, for advanced people, for beginners, etc.). Take notes. Make observations. See what works, and under what circumstances.

At that point, we will have a large well of experiences to draw from. Then we will be ready to say what principles should be emphasized, what tactics should be taught, and to whom. Now, the irony here may be that the process will educate our students better than "techniques" ever could. But that is a different issue. Perhaps it needs its own thread. Either way, at that point, it will be clear what needs to stay and what doesn't.

~TT

 

[MartialArtsGuy]

I think the systematic method TT has typed up is worthy of attention. Also, you put it in a respectfull tone.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

TT: You said it perfectly.

Think of doing lone kimono while the attacker is alternately pulling/pushing you back and forth and side to side while punching you with his free hand and kicking you with both feet and knees. You had better make that technique work!