Kenpo... Hard Style or Soft Style?

[Bill Lear]

Do you think Kenpo is a Hard Style or Soft Style Martial Art System? Why? What do you think?

I personally think it is a happy medium between the two... Containing both hard/linear and soft/circular flowing movements.

 

[jfarnsworth]

It depends upon the individual to make what they want of it.:asian:

 

[Brother John]

I've always equated the terms "hard and soft" with "external and internal". I don't see why something that is circular can't be hard, and why something linear can't be soft. It has more to do with the nature of the contact than with the path traveled to make that contact.
Impact= hard.
non-impact= soft.

On the other thread (where Billy originated this line of discussion) someone stated that they thought that Kenpo could be considered a mix of hard and soft because not all of it's power is dependant upon brute strength (as in TKD or Shotokan)... but this doesn't make it soft. It's not how the power is developed... but that POWER is delivered at all that makes it hard... the fact that our art relies on velocity and alignment to develop this power isn't the point.

Impact...wether from a circle or a line= hard.
non-impact... again from a line or a circle= soft.

tis my reasoning...could be flawed....
but I doubt it.
In the end, it's all semantics... and Kenpo aint about words.
Real knuckles meeting real flesh and all that...

Your Brother
John

 

[Goldendragon7]

Kenpo has elements of both....... We should be able to strike Hard enough to be effective and at the same time be flexable or Soft in our ability to maneuver and produce combinations.

No doubt ..... elements of both.

:asian:

 

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Brother John
I've always equated the terms "hard and soft" with "external and internal". I don't see why something that is circular can't be hard, and why something linear can't be soft. It has more to do with the nature of the contact than with the path traveled to make that contact.
Impact= hard.
non-impact= soft.

On the other thread (where Billy originated this line of discussion) someone stated that they thought that Kenpo could be considered a mix of hard and soft because not all of it's power is dependant upon brute strength (as in TKD or Shotokan)... but this doesn't make it soft. It's not how the power is developed... but that POWER is delivered at all that makes it hard... the fact that our art relies on velocity and alignment to develop this power isn't the point.

Impact...wether from a circle or a line= hard.
non-impact... again from a line or a circle= soft.

tis my reasoning...could be flawed....
but I doubt it.
In the end, it's all semantics... and Kenpo aint about words.
Real knuckles meeting real flesh and all that...

Your Brother
John

Hey brother John,

You have some really good points. I concur. I think that hard vs. soft style has alot to do with the method of generating power for your strikes as well... I still think it is a mix of both based on your defintions stated above though...

Impact= hard.
non-impact= soft.

We do have minor strikes in the system that don't involve a great deal of impact... for instance eye slices.

This is turning into a good thread!

 

[tshadowchaser]

I'll concure with whats been said before
I was told (many years ago when I studyed) that it was a blend of both and that the individual instructor made the difference in how it was taught. If he had studied a soft style first he tended to teach a softer system , and the opposit is also true

 

[Doc]

An interesting perspective for sure, but the idea of styles being hard or soft is a philosophical one, essentially only applicable to traditional martial arts. This is something Ed Parker came to reject for a variety of reasons but, mostly because his idea of American Kenpo left its traditional roots in the sixties, when he was encouraged to break from the original Yudansahkai he created by his senior Adriano Emperado.

The best definition distinction, is as stated internal versus external, with internal being termed "soft," and external considered "hard." Understanding this is important because the origin of historical arts is philosophically internal or "soft." The "hard" philosophy arrived as a result of significant knowledge not being available as the arts flowed to other cultures. Therefore the inability to create internal energy was supplanted with strength and muscles generating blunt force trauma meeting force with force.

The Kahuna (Ed Parker) went through and evolved through various phases and philosophies. In the beginning he was primarily influnced by the "hard" camp where students "slugged" it out and grappled in classes often ending with the sheding of blood and injuries. This continued until he came to the mainland and ultimately began collaborating with Chinese Masters who exposed him to different perspectives of generatng energy and power over and above the primitive methodologies he was well acquainted with.

As he progressed he came to understand the significance of the internal arts and its impact on him was profound. This is the direction Ed Parker decided was his personal choice and it was during this process that anecdotes like his "Menu of Death" story surfaced, as he began to understand the significant implications of the things he was absorbing.

Thus he went from his "Kenpo Karate" phase to his "Secrets of Chinese Karate" perspective and steadily developed his "internal" skills. But in his decision to expand his art, he recognized from his own training it was impossible to teach "internal arts" without diligent, consistent teaching from a highly competent source to make corrections constantly on a daily basis. That coupled with his desire to focus on self defense allowed that the internal wasn't really necessary if certain conceptual ideas could be explored and implemented by the individual.

So he took elements of his "Kenpo Karate" earlier experience and fused it with conceptual ideas of his "Secrets of Chinese Karate" of his own unique intellectual methodology of expression and created modern "American Kenpo Karate." A hybrid of of various ideas and philosophies from the old traditional Japanese, Chinese, and American intellectual immediate (comparitively speaking) results perspective. Therefore his "Kenpo Karate" vehicle is hard and soft but not equally so. It is mostly hard, fused with an American perspective, and seasoned lightly with the "soft" Chinese.

How the proportions shake out percentage wise depends on the direction of your study, who taught you, and how long. But don't confuse what you may have learned in the Parker lineage with what Parker himself did. He stayed on the internal path from the day he discovered it, until he passed away, and actually developed a dislike for the old "hard" philosophies of the early days.

Students like myself and Steve Hearring (as well as others) prefer the internal path, while others seem well suited to the hard. Still many more prefer the more expeditious modern mostly hard with soft approach. But even among these there are variations. Some are extremely intellectual in their approach, still others are more "traditional" considering Kenpo as a static vehicle and unchaging from whatever they were taught. No matter what you do, as long as you're happy with it and it works, its still called "Kenpo."

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by Bill Lear
Impact= hard.
non-impact= soft.

We do have minor strikes in the system that don't involve a great deal of impact... for instance eye slices.

Bill:

Very interesting! I haven't heard it described that way before, but I like it. What would you classify the grappling that is often grafted on to "hard" moves like strikes and traps? I've always thought of throws and aikijutsu type projections as soft, and joint breaks, pins, and chokes as "hard." Basically, to me, anytime where you apply more pressure to the opponent than you receive, or strike first, you are using a "hard" technique. When you react to a strike and use the opponent's energy/force against them, you are reacting in a "soft" manner. To me, Kenpo, like any good art, has aspects of both. What makes it so wonderful I believe is the ability to have almost endless options. If one has the knowledge, they could use a hard or soft technique against almost any attack or situation.

 

[Michael Billings]

I think it is a blend.

e.g. a "soft" parry feeding into a "hard" reverse handsword. Triggered Salute's initial move, arguably, I consider from the soft side. Where ever you find purposeful compliance to generate power, can be considered "soft."

Actual mechanics of execution can prevent the technique from falling into this "soft" category. A case in point would be Triggered Salute, when the body is unyielding and you are rigid when being pushed or striking. I think, now in retrospect, many techniques can be executed either way, and it is, to some extent, the skill level or tailoring by the individual that determines the Hardness or Softness.

Think also about Forms in a competition. How many here have chosen to execute them "harder" than we would in the school, when we know we are in front of hard-style judges. I used to compete a lot, and won by combining hard with soft, and "showing" that to the judges. I am not sure I would bother now .... nope, I know I would not, but I sure liked that winning feeling and getting the trophies when I was younger.

-MB

 

[FiveSwords]

I think, now in retrospect, many techniques can be executed either way, and it is, to some extent, the skill level or tailoring by the individual that determines the Hardness or Softness.

I agree completely.

I've seen a student who previously studied Aikido perform a Kenpo techinque and be very soft and flowing. I've also seen a TKD practioner perform the same technique and be very hard and rigid. So I think a lot of it depends on the person's mindset, but I believe the system was designed to be the best of both worlds.

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by FiveSwords
So I think a lot of it depends on the person's mindset, but I believe the system was designed to be the best of both worlds.

Exactly! Like any good art, Kenpo gives anyone with proper training almost endless options.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by Brother John
I've always equated the terms "hard and soft" with "external and internal". I don't see why something that is circular can't be hard, and why something linear can't be soft. It has more to do with the nature of the contact than with the path traveled to make that contact.
Impact= hard.
non-impact= soft.

Well, I have a friend who does tai chi, and by your definition that would be a hard style and it's not.

If you have to diferenciate, I'll go with the internal/external description, even though I don't know enough of the definitions to speak my mind clearly. But looking at martial arts termed hard of soft by most people is the reason I said hard is sheer strenght and soft is more based in technique (as in proper execution), and that there's both in kenpo.

I like pknox description of hard and soft, but my understanding of what Doc wrote implies some deeper diference between internal and external. Am I wrong, Doc?

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Well, I have a friend who does tai chi, and by your definition that would be a hard style and it's not. But looking at martial arts termed hard of soft by most people is the reason I said hard is sheer strenght and soft is more based in technique (as in proper execution), and that there's both in kenpo.
I like pknox description of hard and soft, but my understanding of what Doc wrote implies some deeper diference between internal and external. Am I wrong, Doc?

No sir you are correct. Movements that are compliant coupled with a hard strike would make all arts a combination of hard and soft. All arts have parries and "giving" movements to set up retaliation "finishing" actions. The distinction lies, as I said before, in the arts philosophy of HOW energy is generated and executed. Because an art has "soft" movements does not make it a "soft" art.

But distinctions vary, depending on the learning stage and student development of some arts. Many arts begin as "hard" and become softer with time and experience. Others never ascend to the soft because the arts philosophy doesn't include it despite some "soft" movements.

Taiji Quan is indeed a "soft" art but strikes very "hard." What makes it a "soft" art is the inherent philosophy of creating "power" and energy from within, through "chi" derived through an understanding of the science of anatomical movement over time. Therefore if "chi" is not philosophically a part of an art, than neither is the "internal" a specific component.

Although a really complex issue, a good simple example is the Japanese Style student who stacks three bricks and drives his handsword through all three in a powerful motion. Than the Chinese Style student does the same, but strikes the top brick and only the one on the bottom breaks by his intent.

American Kenpo CAN be soft, but for most its more a combination of "hard" and "soft" movement sans the "soft" internal philosophy.

Although it doesn't apply in this string, there ia a neanderthal compulsion by some to simplify what is beyond their understanding but, ......

"Nothing is as simple as it seems, and what it seems is really nothing." - Ed Parker

 

[pknox]

Doc:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basically saying that "hard" and "soft" are more a function of philosophy then technique? As you said, many arts have combinations of both in their techniques, and different individuals emphasize different aspects due to their unique attributes and technique vocabulary. That said, it would then be possible for someone to approach a so-called "hard" system (such as the one often offered as the classical example, Shotokan) with a "soft" philosophy or approach. The converse would also then be true, which would allow for hard or "street" aikido, for example. If this is true, than "hard" and "soft" are really labels that would be more fruitfully used to describe artists at various stages of their development, as opposed to arts, where the classification would be more one of stereotyping. If that is what you're saying, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Michael Billings]

Internal Styles of Kung Fu as v. External Styles: It is more a matter of energy, and disrupting the same in others, or channeling it correctly in yourself (projecting it.) We look at the 3 internal styles in China, Tai Chi Chuan Fa being the most widely known, but Pa-Qua (Bagua) and Hsing-I being the other two. Lots more info on this on the web or in the Chinese Arts on this forum.

Great concepts, like "Reeling Silk" energy, which I probably erroneously find in Kenpo. I have done Tai Chi and Pa-Qua, but am definitly a Kenpoist in heart & mind.

It strikes me (pun intended ) that you can have "soft" styles without them necessarily being "internal" styles.

-Michael

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Internal Styles of Kung Fu as v. External Styles: It is more a matter of energy, and disrupting the same in others, or channeling it correctly in yourself (projecting it.) We look at the 3 internal styles in China, Tai Chi Chuan Fa being the most widely known, but Pa-Qua (Bagua) and Hsing-I being the other two.

Michael:

Agreed. TCC and Aikido are basically what comes to my mind when someone says "soft" or "internal." However, having talked to some TCC folks, I have been told that their art definitely has some external aspects -- usually, however, they are not dealt with until a very advanced level of training, and most people don't go that far. This is difference is often seen when people start speaking of "martial" Tai Chi. All Tai Chi is of course by definition martial, but, interestingly enough, when the art begins to incorporate more "external" aspects, the general public is better able to perceive it as plausible in a combat setting. TCC would be an art that trains first internal than external, as opposed to say classical Shaolin Chuan-Fa (i.e. TCC trains from the "inside out" and Shaolin from the "outside in"). Of course everything is relative, as well -- a TKD stylist would look at Hsing-I and most likely label it internal, where most TCC stylists would say that Hsing-I has a more external approach (at least in the beginning) than their art.

To me it seems "internal" and "external", as well as "hard" and "soft" are points within a continuum, with a lot to be left up to the individual practitioner.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by Doc
Taiji Quan is indeed a "soft" art but strikes very "hard." What makes it a "soft" art is the inherent philosophy of creating "power" and energy from within, through "chi" derived through an understanding of the science of anatomical movement over time. Therefore if "chi" is not philosophically a part of an art, than neither is the "internal" a specific component.

First I must say that when I think of "chi", I do it thinking about energy flowing, but as I haven't studied chinese culture/philosophy, I don't know how well it really describes "chi".

And now, by the above understanding, if you are really into being fit and healthy, there comes a moment in your training when you want to make sure you are maximizing power generation, specially if you only weight 55 Kg and cannot rely only on mass. And that is when one begins studying body mechanichs, power transmission/generation and body axis.

Would it be easier then to have an internal approach to a martial art regardless of the style if one is petite? Even for someone who hasn't been exposed to internal arts?

Because after all that's been written in this thread, I don't think internal/external match the soft/hard approach. The first being a phillosopical distinction and the second a physical one.

 

[KenpoDave]

I think in the beginning, kenpo is mostly hard and external. As one progresses, so does the kenpo assuming it is being done correctly.

This is not to say that hard/external kenpo does not work. It must. But I would imagine that most real martial arts start externally and progress inward, including the "internal arts."

 

[pete]

the yin and yang symbol represents the hard and soft within Tai Chi. we learn to balance the substantial (or hard) within the insubstantial (soft), and insubstantial within the substantial. Therefore, to say Tai Chi is soft, or hard for that matter, is in direct conflict with a guiding principle.

kenpo also requires a balance of hard and soft to be effective, otherwise it would just be force against force, with the bigger and stronger dominating the smaller and weaker... which is obviously not the case.

 

[Kempo Guy]

How exactly do you define external and internal?