Seabrook
Black Belt
MattJ said:Would you recommend staying between two (or more) opponents? Yikes! Not me. But that is what most of them do.
I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite.
Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MattJ said:Would you recommend staying between two (or more) opponents? Yikes! Not me. But that is what most of them do.
pete said:what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:
[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]
Seig said:Before you decide that a technique doesn't belong, you need to examine what is being taught by the technique. If any one technique was the end all be all of everything, we not only would not have as many techniques as we do, but we would also have no need of the equation formula, master key moves, or family groupings.
Seabrook said:I don't agree. In fact, it is usually the opposite.
Which of the 2-man techniques do you dislike and why?
what do you think of the multiple attacker strategies here:
[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1sK5zBRbec[/URL]
Kenpojujitsu3 said:Delete what you want and add what you want, but if you do call "the system" by a different name. If I changed any of the letters of the aphabet it wouldn't be the alphabet anymore.
Josh Oakley said:I really don't see the problem with deleting or updating techniques in kempo or any other system. One of the core concepts of martial arts is that it is also a science. In the world of sciences like astronomy or chemistry, a paradigm is held onto as long as it is accurate to the information we have. If reality doesn't fit the paradigm, then we must change the paradigm (break out of the fishbowl, as it were).
If a martial art's technique does not work and can get someone killed, and doesn't work in reality, it should not be taught as is. It MUST be modified. Martial science dictates that we do not fight yesterday's war, and the survival of the martial arts from being marginalized demands change. Change is the one true characteristic of all living things. How do you think kempo came to exist in the first place?
In science, laws are spoken of. But laws change with greater understanding of reality. Just because something changes in Kempo does not mean it is no longer Kempo. It is still the law of the fist, based on its efficiency and effectiveness. Do not keep things just because that's the way it's always been done.
Because in reality, if it's not efficient, and it's not EFFECTIVE, it isn't Kempo.
Monadnock said:Every technique has a counter, and a counter to the counter. So they all work, and all don't work. I don't think there will ever be a day when one is run to completion without any altering. Stay with the principles and forget the techniques. This technique jibber jabber is old hat now. Time to move on IMHO.
Kenpojujitsu3 said:The problem there is that the techniques are the vehicle through which the principles are taught (at least in Kenpo they are). If you trash a technique there is a principle going with it in most cases.
Kenpojujitsu3 said:The problem is that not all of martial arts is a set science as there are too many variables. What is effective and efficient for one is often not a effective or efficient for another.
Example the Ura Nage in Judo/Ju Jitsu is a very powerful damaging throw if. It has a science behind it (leverage and gravity). However for a very small woman who's arms do not have the circumference to secure themselves around a larger person the throw is not effective. So should she throw this technique out and then teach the system without this technique to future generations based on her own physical limitation?
Effective and efficient are subjective terms not absolutes which is why there is no agreement on whether material should or should not be deleted.
Monadnock said:I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."
By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.
Monadnock said:I agree. By "forgetting" techniques, I did not mean to remove them from the curriculum, but rather "learn it, and forget it."
By practicing techniques for years, they will become engrained into your responses and later the student should be able to act without thinking, or recalling the technique. At this point, the tech has been "forgotten," at least by the consious mind. Attachment to techniques is a trait of the beginner, and it only clutters the mind instead of letting them act freely, or spiritually, if you will. This also, is when logic is less depended upon.
Josh Oakley said:Pehaps I was not clear on what I meant when I talked about "science". The core of all science is the scientific method. There are general theories and special theories (ex: relativity) which serve as paradigms, and stick around as long as they are an effective description of reality as we know it. But the core of science is the process by which those paradigms came to exist, which, again, is the scientific method.
So, really, I don't see our two views as opposing. In fact, you just gave a perfect example for what I was so poorly trying to describe. In the throw you spoke of, I would teach the student that the throw will work, but against certain opponents. Against larger opponents, I'd probably tell her to concentrate on vital areas. But she would still learn the throw, because it is applicable in other areas.
This is still all very scientific. It's based on what would work for that student. (I'd also like to point out that the concept of a "set science" is actually counterintuitive to the very nature of science.)
But there are certain knife defenses that really don't work, and could get people killed (and don't get me started on gun defense). I grew up in bad areas, and carried a knife on me at all times as a necessity. I joined the Army and really got to know about pistols, rifles, and knives, and I have seen many knife and gun defenses in different martial arts systems and become very doubtful in the effectivenes of many of them.