In my opinion JB is correct on this one, but you must consider that "tailoring" was introduced conceptually to insure a student could make a particular technique
functional within a given set of circumstances at the first level of AK. Obviously the instructor assists in this process by making suggestions for obstacles that present themselves at the moment.
Significantly from our perspective however, the instructors role is much smaller in tailoring because the circumstances tend to present themselves in a similar manner on most occassions. A person who is vertically challenged is always short and therefore must tailor most techniques to compensate for this height deficiency. "Changing the finished product to suit the individual" has more to do with preferences in "Destructive Modulation" in our curriculum, and that is learned much further down the line.
We spend the majority of our efforts at the first level on insuring every technique is street functional with only very minor tailoring allowed for disparities in Body Geometry. When you can succesfully under pressure execute 90% of the base curriculum Default Techniques, than we move on to a re-examination of the base curriculum from a higher perpsective and begin to include additional elements triggered by an opponent's more aggressive actions.
In our curriculum understanding the base is paramount. No. Check that. EXECUTING the base is paramount. One cannot go into formulations unless they have the requisite knowledge that encompasses principles that go beyond simple "blunt force trauma" infliction. Anyone can learn to hit soemone with random adaptable strikes, but Destructive Sequencing requires specific action to generate specific results. (General knowledge and actions create general results, specific knowledge and actions create specific results. - Ed Parker)
I know that in "Alternating Maces" the "sequence" is set for a reason. I know that the strike/block to the arm attacks a lung cavity, followed by a conception strike, and ending with a finishing backfist to a triple burner that will produce the desired effect. I also know that even if a student is not capable of exactly hitting the mark in the beginning, as long a I give him good basic execution the technique will work on a mechanical level quite well. From that point forward a student can only get better and more efficient and effective. And the really cool part is, the techniques are already sequenced in the base curriculum. If you learn to execute them, they will work. Later on you learn why as we expand your knowledge.
I demonstrated this in a camp (back in the day when they would invite me) to an amazed group of BB's by tapping the first and third move on a rather large and tall man. He insisted he was allright, and I told him to not move because he wasn't. He insisted, the group laughed, and all of a sudden he dropped to the floor and couldn't get up.
I believe JB saw the tape when he visited me (about 10 years ago
The bad news is if you want to be able to do that, you must leave Motion-Kenpo formulations, tailoring, and what ifs behind for more dominant priciples. The good news is you can still do all those things after you have the knowledge of HOW to do it and incorporate the dominant principles.
The problem with Kenpo is it is full of hypothetical discussions, and I'd rather touch you to make my "point"
Standing in front of you where I can touch and move your body will always give you a new perspective. Right JB?
I thought those points were stressed from the beginning?
