IP Techniques: Do We Need Them?

[MJS]

This thread is to discuss the value or not, of the Ideal Phase techniques. I started this thread, as this subject is popping up in a few other areas in the Kenpo section, so in an effort to not sidetrack the other threads too much, I thought we could discuss it here.

The IP techs are of course, a platform that we should be building from. Of course, as many have said, we should be functional with the techs. as well.

In another thread in this section, it was said that functionality is not a specific set of techniques. Instead, its the underlying principle.

If we look at a boxer, we see a set of punches, but no preset techs. so to speak. The punches can be put together in endless combos.

So, that being said, wouldnt it be possible, to take our basics, ie: the punches, kicks, blocks, etc., eliminate the preset techs, and go right to creating a FM (functional method) technique? In other words, instead of doing Attacking Mace in the IP and then FM for a right punch, just go right to a FM? I mean, it'd almost make sense, especially if you have to change the IP to make it more functional, no?

In closing, let me say that this is just something that was sparked by recent discussion. I have my own views on the techs, that may/may not reflect what I just said above. I'll share those thoughts shortly.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hi Mike,

I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore. I'll just say this much: I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.

I'll say this much more: The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why. I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.

 

[Touch Of Death]

FM... No static at all. I say keep the ideal phase for the lessons taught for that specific circumstance, but also teach point of origin for the reality and the changing dynamics of that reality.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hi Mike,

I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore. I'll just say this much: I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.

I'll say this much more: The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why. I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.

I would suggest you are simply evolving in your kenpo away from the techs, but the word means different things to different people. The Parameters defining the use of your fists is what it means, and your changing parameters are natural as you progress.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Hi Mike,

I am tempted to reply but I'm not sure I should, not really my field anymore. I'll just say this much: I no longer consider myself a kenpo guy, I made the decision that for me, kenpo is simply not a good fit.

I'll say this much more: The whole issue of the techniques is a big part of the reason why. I guess I find them unmanageable in the big picture.

By all means, please give your thoughts. We've shared a number of discussions, both on the forum, and via PM. I certainly value your thoughts on this. But of course, if you would rather not, thats fine too.

 

[ATACX GYM]

From all the writings that I could get of GGMEP and the statements of those who knew him,even GGMEP didn't practice the techniques of the IP as they are presented to us.The Tracys said that GGMEP practiced each technique "50 Ways To Sunday".Do we see 50 Ways to Sunday in the IP presentation? Nope.We see 50 and more ways to get our asses kicked,though.Not being rude,just being honest.

The ideas and concepts of each and every one of the 72 SD templates are great.Their presentation is wakk as hell and need to be trash canned asap...then a comprehensive,totally functional upgrade in every way needs to supplant them AS THE BASE FROM WHICH WE START OUR STUDIES.And then we innovate even better functional material from there.Our evolution from kata to combat from spiritual and self-discipline to hardcore practicality,from art to science...because the functional method is the only real way to really do that.Imagine somebody trying to teach you some IP yoga so you can get flexible or a SWAT team doing some IP arresting of the bad guy to get rid of Columbian drug cartels or somebody telling Floyd Mayweather to "ideally" jab at Sugar Shane or Pacquiao.Now why in the hell would you NOT have the same "don't gimme that crap" expression on your face when somebody tells you to DEFEND YOUR LIFE,THE LIFE OF A LOVED ONE OR INNOCENT using some IP technique trained the IP way (meaning NO training against resistant opponents)?

 

[Flying Crane]

By all means, please give your thoughts. We've shared a number of discussions, both on the forum, and via PM. I certainly value your thoughts on this. But of course, if you would rather not, thats fine too.

I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists. I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me. But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it. Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.

That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas. I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic. I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak. I get that. But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development. It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them. Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material. But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch. I feel we don't need that. We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.

I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training. In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important. Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.

 

[Touch Of Death]

From all the writings that I could get of GGMEP and the statements of those who knew him,even GGMEP didn't practice the techniques of the IP as they are presented to us.The Tracys said that GGMEP practiced each technique "50 Ways To Sunday".Do we see 50 Ways to Sunday in the IP presentation? Nope.We see 50 and more ways to get our asses kicked,though.Not being rude,just being honest.

The ideas and concepts of each and every one of the 72 SD templates are great.Their presentation is wakk as hell and need to be trash canned asap...then a comprehensive,totally functional upgrade in every way needs to supplant them AS THE BASE FROM WHICH WE START OUR STUDIES.And then we innovate even better functional material from there.Our evolution from kata to combat from spiritual and self-discipline to hardcore practicality,from art to science...because the functional method is the only real way to really do that.Imagine somebody trying to teach you some IP yoga so you can get flexible or a SWAT team doing some IP arresting of the bad guy to get rid of Columbian drug cartels or somebody telling Floyd Mayweather to "ideally" jab at Sugar Shane or Pacquiao.Now why in the hell would you NOT have the same "don't gimme that crap" expression on your face when somebody tells you to DEFEND YOUR LIFE,THE LIFE OF A LOVED ONE OR INNOCENT using some IP technique trained the IP way (meaning NO training against resistant opponents)?

The ideal is important; because, it limits the student to the lesson. No one in any Kenpo, as far as I know, is advocating the IP only approach.
Sean

 

[marlon]

ok, so i'll ask here as well. The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by. What is the ideal phase exactly? Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding. Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?

REspectfully,
Marlon

 

[marlon]

I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists. I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me. But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it. Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.

That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas. I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic. I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak. I get that. But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development. It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them. Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material. But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch. I feel we don't need that. We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.

I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training. In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important. Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.

I have to say i understand your points. I want to point out though that with proper attention, small variations and add up to major bang for your buck

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Touch Of Death]

ok, so i'll ask here as well. The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by. What is the ideal phase exactly? Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding. Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?

REspectfully,
Marlon

The ideal phase is a specific defense against a specific attack. You can "what if" every tech to death, or you can learn that lesson and move on. If the attack calls for a single punch, and you change it all up because he may very well be throwing a flurry of punches, then you miss the lesson of the single attack. If you change up techs against a static opponent because he my be running, then you miss the lesson of the static attack, and so on.
Sean

 

[jks9199]

As I understand it, the Ideal Phase or model techniques were Ed Parker's way of encapsulating his fighting methods, principles, and style into a package that could be offered commercially. The progression and sequence were intended to present those principles as the students training advanced.

But the Ideal Phase techniques weren't, as far as I understand it, meant to be "everything you need, how to handle every situation." Once practiced, and internalized, the Ideal Phase techniques were meant to produce appropriate, effective responses when faced by an actual attack using those principles.

I really think it's comparable to training in Japanese koryu arts (and arts that train on the same principle). The kata there are a tool for developing the appropriate movements and responses according to the principles in the art. They aren't really meant as "if punched, do this... if someone swings a sword, do that", nor are they some coded secret repository of lethal secrets. They're a pedagogic method.

 

[MJS]

ok, so i'll ask here as well. The last comment said something very specific that a non AK person like myself may be confused by. What is the ideal phase exactly? Becuase trained in the non effective techniques and trained in a non effective manner are two different things to my understanding. Does the IP techniques include a specific way of training and is the training the actual problem or the techniques?

REspectfully,
Marlon

The IP teaches a specific defense for a specific attack. You could have multiple IP techs for similar attacks, yet there is a slight difference. Ex: A double lapel grab...one tech may address the attacker pushing his arms out, the other, pulling you in.

Of course, this is why we have 154 techs, 600 in Tracy, and so forth.

My thoughts on the IP...I could go 2 different ways. 1) for the sake of the art, I teach them. But, if I had it my way, I'd drastically trim them down. As I said above, each tech is teaching something specific. IMO, I think that its crazy to have a set tech to teach a defense if the guy attacks this way, that way, and every way in between. LOL. I mean, under pressure, its gonna be pretty darn hard to be able to recall a tech to match the attack presented.

Instead, it makes more sense to take a few techs for each level. For reference, we'll use Attacking Mace, right step thru punch. Train it in the IP, and then train it with a bunch of other variants, ie: a cross instead of a step thru, a jab and a cross, and so forth. Instead of having to have a ton of preset moves to sort thru, you fall back on your basics. Using my boxer example...the boxer has a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, yet there're numerous ways to combine those punches. You shorten the required material, the student has less to practice, thus allowing more time to focus on fewer things, thus allowing them to get better, while at the same time, crafting their own tech, so to speak.

2) The second way would be to eliminate the techs altogether. Strip the material to barebones. Teach blocks, punches, strikes, kicks, footwork, etc, add in movement sooner, rather than training these things from a static stance, and have the student put their tools together to form a response. ex: they know how to block, punch and move, so when the punch comes in, thats what they do.

Personally, I like version 1 better. Yes, because I dont have my own school, I teach the material as required at the school I'm a part of. But I dont always gear my classes to learning a new tech. Instead, I take something they already know, and I'll spend half the class or more, going over that tech, variations, etc. I'm still teaching the IP, but where some other insts there may stop at that, I'm taking it to the next step and making it a more FM tech.

 

[MJS]

I don't mind sharing the thoughts, I just don't want to be disrespectful to the other kenpoists. I personally find problems in kenpo as I understand it and as I've see it done otherwise, problems that make me realize it isn't right for me. But that's me and not to be taken for others, and I don't want to come off as if I'm just bashing on it since I cannot consider myself involved any longer with it. Just bad form, and that's what I want to avoid.

That being said, I'll throw out a couple ideas. I think formulating the curriculum with a set of techs like most kenpo lineages do, is problematic. I understand the notion that the techs teach ideas and concepts and are not meant to be done right-out-of-the-box, so to speak. I get that. But when we have such a large variety of techs for the same kinds of attacks, I think it instills the subconscious notion that we need to have a different response for the same attack, depending on minor variables, and I think that is detrimental to development. It's my opinion that if one is really good at 3 or 4 concepts, they can probably manage 90% of what might come at them. Lots of mileage out of a very small group of material. But when we've got a few dozen techniques against a punch, for example, it builds the notion that we NEED a few dozen techs against a punch. I feel we don't need that. We need about 2-4, and that should take care of you.

I think sometimes the techs exist as sort of creativity for the sake of creativity, and many of them do not really add anything valuable to the training. In fact, when they are overdone in volume they detract because they distract one from training what is really important. Instead, one trains simply to keep up with the system, instead of training to develop skill.

QFT! Agreed Mike. I have to wonder what the old school Kenpo days were like. Did Chow have hundreds of techs at his school? Or is the creation of all these hundreds of techs something that happened in present day?

I have a hard time believing that we need 30 (just tossing out a random number) punch techs and all those tech are teaching something different. I call BS on that. We need 30 techs to teach us 30 different concepts? Thats crazy. LOL. Supposedly there're many different applications to moves in a kata, so why can't we have several versions for 1 tech? No reason why I can't take a Parker tech, and play with it, so I have 1 tech for a punch, yet make a change to how the person punches, and adapt on the fly.

We can still have the IP techs as a base, but instead of 24 or 40 per belt, trim it to 6, but make those 6 functional.

 

[jks9199]

I think another thing to remember about these techniques is that (again, I'm going on my understanding, largely from various posts and discussions here) they were developed as part of a deliberate commercialization push by Ed Parker. The Tracy's just picked up from that collection in their own way. So... I can very definitely suspect that some of the quantity and structuring for belts was done for rather mercenary reasons...

It'd be great if Doc Chapel were to share his insights on this...

 

[marlon]

I think another thing to remember about these techniques is that (again, I'm going on my understanding, largely from various posts and discussions here) they were developed as part of a deliberate commercialization push by Ed Parker. The Tracy's just picked up from that collection in their own way. So... I can very definitely suspect that some of the quantity and structuring for belts was done for rather mercenary reasons...

It'd be great if Doc Chapel were to share his insights on this...

Careful what you ask for...

 

[Inkspill]

I think they are absolutely necessary, in the correct order they are to be taught.

it's a curriculum built to teach in a logical progression. building upon what is known, increasing skill level, etc etc

the techniques introduce the Kenpoist to the study of motion and how to combine the "master key moves" - which means BASICS. putting it together, studying how the body moves, natural reactions, principles, etc, are studied through the techniques.

Look at traditional arts, like Shotokan. at least back when I studied it, we spent a ton of time standing in a horse, practicing basics. moving, sliding the foot, 1, 2, 1, 2.

compare how the traditional guys move and how Kenpoists move. Mr. Parker refined and sophisticated the movements! he also also refined and sophisticated the method of teaching, etc.

we still train the basics, but now we can become "magicians of motion", all for the purpose of stopping the bad guy and getting away.

 

[Flying Crane]

QFT! Agreed Mike. I have to wonder what the old school Kenpo days were like. Did Chow have hundreds of techs at his school? Or is the creation of all these hundreds of techs something that happened in present day?

I have a hard time believing that we need 30 (just tossing out a random number) punch techs and all those tech are teaching something different. I call BS on that. We need 30 techs to teach us 30 different concepts? Thats crazy. LOL. Supposedly there're many different applications to moves in a kata, so why can't we have several versions for 1 tech? No reason why I can't take a Parker tech, and play with it, so I have 1 tech for a punch, yet make a change to how the person punches, and adapt on the fly.

We can still have the IP techs as a base, but instead of 24 or 40 per belt, trim it to 6, but make those 6 functional.

Hi Mike,

I'll add to my thoughts with this: I do believe that whatever one is practicing and teaching, it must have an ideal phase of some sort. The student needs to have a clear instruction of what is happening and what the theory is behind it, and when learning something new it must be done in the ideal phase. One cannot skip over that and hope for success. It would be like taking a 16 year-old kid who just passed his drivers test and handing him the keys to a ferrari and telling him to take it out and see how he does at 140 mph. Guaranteed crash there because the kid hasn't developed the skills to go at that speed, something that comes gradually and with experience.

Same with training martial arts. You cannot skip the ideal phase and jump straight to full speed and full power. Not gonna be able to handle it yet.

Maybe the problem is that many people don't look past the ideal phase and never try to train at a higher level of realism and intensity, to experience what that is like and how it affects application. They work in the ideal phase and never progress beyond.

 

[Flying Crane]

compare how the traditional guys move and how Kenpoists move. Mr. Parker refined and sophisticated the movements! he also also refined and sophisticated the method of teaching, etc.

I'll be honest and say that from what I've seen, the people who trained in a solid traditional school move far better than most of the kenpo people that I've seen.

 

[MJS]

Hi Mike,

I'll add to my thoughts with this: I do believe that whatever one is practicing and teaching, it must have an ideal phase of some sort. The student needs to have a clear instruction of what is happening and what the theory is behind it, and when learning something new it must be done in the ideal phase. One cannot skip over that and hope for success. It would be like taking a 16 year-old kid who just passed his drivers test and handing him the keys to a ferrari and telling him to take it out and see how he does at 140 mph. Guaranteed crash there because the kid hasn't developed the skills to go at that speed, something that comes gradually and with experience.

Same with training martial arts. You cannot skip the ideal phase and jump straight to full speed and full power. Not gonna be able to handle it yet.

Maybe the problem is that many people don't look past the ideal phase and never try to train at a higher level of realism and intensity, to experience what that is like and how it affects application. They work in the ideal phase and never progress beyond.

Hey Mike,

Yes, I agree, and thats why I still teach the IP techs. My thing is, that I dont feel that we need an IP for every single attack. I should be able to take 1 punch tech., work it in the IP, and from there, using the basics, be able to adapt and come up with a response for anything else off that 1 tech. Ex: tech is taught as a right step thru. Work it as a cross, work it against a jab and cross, work it against a jab and step thru, and so forth.

I'm not saying to just have 1 punch tech, I'm saying that we dont need "X" number of punch techs to teach us a seperate, set response for various attacks. Did that make sense? LOL. In essance, we have a tech if the attacker is standing with his left forward, and does a step thru right. Another tech if the attacker throws a cross. Another tech is the attacker is standing with his left forward, but the defender is with his right forward, another..... see what I'm saying? When we reach the spontaneous phase, IMO, there isn't time to process hundreds of techs to find the 'right one' when that punch is racing to our head. We just react, using our basics, and the platform the IP taught us.

Of course, we still take our time. Learn the stuff slow, no resistance, pressure, etc. and gradually build up.