Kenpo... Hard Style or Soft Style?

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Kempo Guy
How exactly do you define external and internal?

What is your definition of external vs. internal or hard style vs. soft style, and what do you think Kenpo is based on your definition?

 

[Kempo Guy]

Bill Lear asked: What is your definition of external vs. internal or hard style vs. soft style, and what do you think Kenpo is based on your definition?

My answer (based on what I've been taught by my Neijia teachers):

I was taught that Internal has nothing to do with whether an art is soft, uses Qi or what not. It has to do with how you manifest your 'jing', i.e. the issuance of whole-body power using proper biomechanics and being in a state of dynamic relaxation. IMA's (internal martial arts) also seek to develop the feel of a "united body" over strength, and uniting your mind and body to direct your "jing". One of the requirements during the issuance of force in IMA is using a unified body.

External MA then uses sectional power, meaning the body is not united in it's issuance of force. An external artist may strike using a lot of rotational power from the hip which generates a whip like motion to the fist (as an example). While the external practitioner may be relaxed during the strike (until the final moment of impact), the issuance of power differs from the 'whole-body power' used in IMA.

Of course one of the GENERAL differences in characteristics between IMA and EMA imho is the difference in it's application.
IMA's characteristics are to never issue force until you are in an advantageous position by trying to 'borrow the opponents energy'; sticking and following the incoming force vector; and lastly avoidance of direct contact (never meet power with power).

These principles hold true for most biomechanically efficient styles.
Just some thoughts from the cheapseats...

Also in regards to Qi/Ki, I believe it means 'life force', nothing more nothing less. Hence, without ki we would be unable to live. Everybody/thing has ki some stronger, some weaker.

KG

 

[Kempo Guy]

Addendum to my post above:

I want to make myself a little clearer so there’s no confusion.

An external martial artists may shift his ‘whole body’ to engage a strike, but often uses compartmentalized power to generate force. When looking at issuing power there are definitely a couple of distinct ways it cam be issued. As discussed there are what I have come to call "sectional" and "whole body" power. When struck, you would very much be able to tell the difference between the two types of force.

Having a long Karate (Kyokushinkai and Kempo) background I can certainly relate to the 'sectional power' theory. For instance, many Karate and Kung Fu styles will harden their fist (ala iron fist, iron palm training). Now this is never seen in IMA as the focus is never on the striking weapon but on the connection of mind, body and the ground to generate the force. The fist/leg or what not just happens to be there to be used.

As many of you know, different arts have different training methodologies. However, how you issue power is quite congruous between most external styles, the same can be said of internal styles... (since we're using these labels for the sake of this topic). There definitely are commonalities when you break down the biomechanics of each 'branch' (i.e. internal vs. external).

As I mentioned, I don't like using the labels... but I look at the styles as biomechanically efficient vs. not. BTW, this by no means mean that one is more effective than another… perhaps less efficient?
Also, another thing I've observed is that most styles that fall within the biomechanically efficient systems (internal) are the focus on teaching principles over techniques, which may be the case of some Kenpo styles. Some of the internal systems may teach forms but most teach sequences of movement (kinetic chains) in order to program your neuromuscular system as opposed to external systems were they use rote memorization of techniques.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

I’m off my soapbox. Thanks for listening. :asian:

KG

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kempo Guy
Addendum to my post above:

I want to make myself a little clearer so there’s no confusion.

An external martial artists may shift his ‘whole body’ to engage a strike, but often uses compartmentalized power to generate force. When looking at issuing power there are definitely a couple of distinct ways it cam be issued. As discussed there are what I have come to call "sectional" and "whole body" power. When struck, you would very much be able to tell the difference between the two types of force.

Having a long Karate (Kyokushinkai and Kempo) background I can certainly relate to the 'sectional power' theory. For instance, many Karate and Kung Fu styles will harden their fist (ala iron fist, iron palm training). Now this is never seen in IMA as the focus is never on the striking weapon but on the connection of mind, body and the ground to generate the force. The fist/leg or what not just happens to be there to be used.

As many of you know, different arts have different training methodologies. However, how you issue power is quite congruous between most external styles, the same can be said of internal styles... (since we're using these labels for the sake of this topic). There definitely are commonalities when you break down the biomechanics of each 'branch' (i.e. internal vs. external).

As I mentioned, I don't like using the labels... but I look at the styles as biomechanically efficient vs. not. BTW, this by no means mean that one is more effective than another… perhaps less efficient?
Also, another thing I've observed is that most styles that fall within the biomechanically efficient systems (internal) are the focus on teaching principles over techniques, which may be the case of some Kenpo styles. Some of the internal systems may teach forms but most teach sequences of movement (kinetic chains) in order to program your neuromuscular system as opposed to external systems were they use rote memorization of techniques.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

I’m off my soapbox. Thanks for listening. :asian:

KG

You should get on the soapbox more often.:asian:

 

[Kempo Guy]

Thank you sir. All I am doing is reinterpreting information that I have received from my teachers based on my own experiences and research.
KG

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kempo Guy
Thank you sir. All I am doing is reinterpreting information that I have received from my teachers based on my own experiences and research.
KG

Well Sir, It is obvious you are thinking, and I commend you and your teachers on the subject.

 

[Michael Billings]

So, are "rooting" or "grounding" part of your system? Further, how do you relate your interpretation to American Kenpo? Tracy Style, EPAK of the 80's and 90's, and the variants we see today, SL-4, George Dillman's pressure points, or Paul Mills' speed strikes knocking someone out with 2 fingers?

Any opinion is welcome.

-MB

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Paul Mills' speed strikes knocking someone out with 2 fingers?

Could someone say more about this (possibly in another thread, if approrpiate)?

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by arnisador
Could someone say more about this (possibly in another thread, if approrpiate)?

NO! It's our secret....... that is unless you want to become a Kenpoist

:asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

... I think he has a clip of it somewhere out on the web. Or maybe one of his student's does. There are some other Kenpo guys who show the same thing, and they have clips out there also.

-MB

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
NO! It's our secret....... that is unless you want to become a Kenpoist

Heh. No, I just want to take some of your ideas, I'm afraid--the language and analysis that you all have worked out for me! We know that arnis needs more of this and my instructor has been looking at the Kenpo community as a model.

I've described what kenpoists call "reverse motion" to many people over the years but without having a name for it, and something as simple as picking up that label from this forum and using it has been helpful--"To name is To know," as they say. I was quite serious when I posted about looking for a good intro. to the principles of Kenpo, written for someone who might not know what "Clutching Feathers" meant.

I only want you for your mind Goldendragon7!

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by arnisador
I only want you for your mind b]Goldendragon7! [/B]

Damn, and I have been working sooooo hard on my body ...... well back to the drawing board:rofl:

:asian:

Maybe if you are real good........ I'll help you with your request....

 

[arnisador]

We really are working on it. Huk Planaas is Mr. Hartman's main Kenpo contact.

Someone directed me to www.akki.com where the fourth video on the Video Clips page has the technique(s).

 

[Kempo Guy]

Mr Billings asked: So, are "rooting" or "grounding" part of your system? Further, how do you relate your interpretation to American Kenpo? Tracy Style, EPAK of the 80's and 90's, and the variants we see today, SL-4, George Dillman's pressure points, or Paul Mills' speed strikes knocking someone out with 2 fingers?

Rooting & grounding I would imagine would be present in just about any martial art, whether the practitioner is aware of it or not.

As for the PP strikes, they are present in many if not all the techniques if you choose to study them. There are vulnerable points all over your body... Some people focus exclusively on learning the points which I feel is a big mistake. My Neijia teacher used to tell me that "How are 'you' supposed to strike to these points when you can't even defend yourself. You should learn how to defend yourself before you worry about those things". Or something to that effect, and I agree with him.

BTW, I don't think Dillman's PP nor Mr. Mills' two finger knockout has anything to do with roothing or grounding for the most part. Some of these principles may or may not be present during the performance of said technique.

That KO shown on Paul Mills' website was done with a rather simple technique. You just have to know where to hit. It requires no strength nor does it require much force.

Here's my theory of what we're seeing... please note that I take no responsibility for anyone's actions if they choose to use what I describe. The information is out there (readily available) for anyone to learn but can be EXTREMELY dangerous and hazardous to your health. Try at your own risk!

FWIW, it looks like it was struck to SI17 as the direction of the force seems to be upwards, which would be appropriate. But, I can't quite see it. It could also be applied to ST9 as it's a very common point to be used for demos.... Not to mention the fact that the cartoid artery is right there and by disrupting the bloodflow will cause a reaction (such as a KO).



KG

"There is no spoon" - The Matrix

 

[8253]

I believe that Kenpo has a lot of soft style movements and a few hard style movements. I think that as far as it being specifically a hard or soft style, it depends on the person who is learning it. I myself prefer the softness of Kenpo as compared to other MA's offered around the area where i live.

 

[OC Kid]

Doc,
You are correct on the evolution of Kempo. I was at Bob Whites school a few months ago and He had a old video tape which he showed to the school. It was of Mr. Parker demo-ing kempo in the 60s. He looked almost like a hard style karate system. I compare that to todays and it is definately different. IMO the Instructor and his philosophy makes the determining factor whether or not a school teaches a "harder" version of the techniques or not. Ive been to some schools that really emphasize the hip ala hard style and others do not.

 

[Karazenpo]

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."

I have to say, in my opinion, Doc is right on! I don't believe hard and soft have anything to do with being impact and non-impact for all strikes, punches and kicks hit with impact. I was taught, as Doc stated, hard and soft was mean't to be about internal and external with the internal being much more difficult to understand and get down. That being said this is why ALL the Hawaiian-derived Kenpo of that time was initially based on the hard style system. Sometime during and/or little after the 60's most Kenpo/Kempo/Kajukenbo pioneers began to search for the softer, more internal side of the art and incorporated it into their teachings, not just Ed Parker and American Kenpo. I know personally that Professor Nick Cerio took the much 'harder' Karazenpo Go Shinjutsu style that he learned in the early/mid 60's and incorporated more influence from the Chinese martial arts and came up with Nick Cerio's Kenpo in 1974. He took some of the original Karazenpo forms and made them 'softer' and even added a Sil Lum Pai form, Lin Wan Kune. Gm. Fred Villari did the same thing but saved it for his advanced curriculum right around 1st-2nd degree black belt or with the advent of the form Sho Tung Kwak of which he referred to in the 70's as the first in the series of the 'Chinese' forms, prior to that the system he teaches is essentially hard style Karazenpo Go Shinjutsu. Sijo Adriano Emperado after recieving his initial training in the hard style kenpo karate began incorporating the beginnings of the Chu'an Fa branch in 1959 into his Kajukenbo system which finally came into organization in the mid 60's and in 1969 he incorporated the Tum Pai (internal) branch, not to mention Al Dacascos's perspective of Kajukenbo when he developed the Won Hop Kuen Do branch also in the 60's. I believe also and it goes without saying ALL our original Hawaiian-derived Kenpo/Kempo/Kajukenbo is rooted in the hard style Okinawan arts of that time period, some blended with Danzan Ryu Jui Jitsu. I also feel ALL karate systems, even GoJu (hard/soft) Ryu would be classified as predominately 'hard' systems and I also agree with those who say it's where the emphasis lies. An instructor can emphasize, the hard, the soft, the linear or the circular aspects of any art. It's his/her show! Respectfully, Professor Joe Shuras

 

[Karazenpo]

Reflecting on my previous post I have a question also on the proper terminology and application when using hard & soft. I will venture to say then when referring to a martial arts style hard is external and soft is internal. That seems to be the norm. However, it is also used to explain certain Chinese concepts in a different light. For instance, 'Softness overcomes hardness, then hardness attacks softness'-an example being an attacker lunges in at you with a haymaker and you intinctively draw back in some version of let's say a cat stance possibly with a open-hand redirectional type block-this would be the soft movement which defended the attacker's hard attack. Your attacker is now in an off balanced position or soft. You now take advantage and come in 'hard' and counter-attack. If you used a redirectional block or parry, that too would be referred to as a 'soft' block. Open hand strikes are sometimes referred to as soft strikes but how many of us over the years in martial art demontrations smashed through slabs of patio blocks with a palm heel in an attempt to save some wear and tear on our knuckles. However, I still would not call such strikes non-impact for the above obvious reason. They have been referred to as soft strikes but they can still be used with hard power. Using the definition internal/external then even a close fist strike could very well be used as an internal strike, correct? What say you, Doc? Good topic & good discussion!

 

[BallistikMike]

It has always been my understanding that the art develops with the practitioner.

So in our youth 20 - 35 ish you embrace the "hard" aspect of the art you are practicing and then as you cross into the middle age and later years 36 - death lol you embrace the "soft" aspect of the art you are practicing. Which has always been there.

What it took was experience, maturity, understanding and many, many, many hours, weeks, years of practice to allow your body and mind to embrace one another and find your true self.

You could also look at it that you have become very good at the art and it looks fluid and soft to those with less experience.

hard/soft its all there always has been.

 

[Karazenpo]

It has always been my understanding that the art develops with the practitioner.

So in our youth 20 - 35 ish you embrace the "hard" aspect of the art you are practicing and then as you cross into the middle age and later years 36 - death lol you embrace the "soft" aspect of the art you are practicing. Which has always been there.

What it took was experience, maturity, understanding and many, many, many hours, weeks, years of practice to allow your body and mind to embrace one another and find your true self.

You could also look at it that you have become very good at the art and it looks fluid and soft to those with less experience.

hard/soft its all there always has been.

Imho, You're absolutely correct with your assumption, Mike, because with experience, maturity, understanding and time...........you just make it look easy, lol.