Technique fixation vs. strategy & spontaneity

[bujuts]

[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]I had the fortune of experiencing a number of "kenpo-changing" classes last weekend when Marcus Buonfiglio came to Phoenix. I wanted to open up a discussion for anybody interested.

It can be said that there are a number paradigms in which we may view the techniques in the system. Sometimes, they might be seen in terms of the attacks they deal with and are grouped or categorized as such. At other times, we might learn the different power sources that the techniques offer. Some others might view them in terms their patterns, their emphasis on particular principles, or where one might be "grafted" into another. The notion of categories and similarities between these constructs help our minds organize the vast body of knowledge that is kenpo and break it into workable, bite size pieces, no surprise to anyone there.

With the emphasis of Mr. Buonfiglio's classes on multiple assailants, a number of techniques were viewed in terms of what they offer strategically. From this perspective, Delayed Sword for example does not teach us what to do against a right hand attack (the inward block teaches us that), rather it offers some simple motions while on the inside of the body with peripheral vision having scanned from ~7:30 to 3:00 through the course of the technique. Similarly, Captured Twigs does not teach what to do with a rear bear hug with arms pinned (the initial motion will deal with that), rather it allows us to deal with someone at 6:00 whilst we maintain visual clarity of ~9:00 to 3:00.

This brings about some valuable lessons. Take on a right arm attack (punch or grab) with a second person closing in from 3:00. Delayed Sword proper is not a good choice here, nor is Five Swords proper. But once having dealt with the initial attack, immediate footwork and selective contact manipulation can bring you to the outside, executing, say, a right inward block to the attacker's right tricep - functionally Delayed Sword aimed at 1:00 - 3:00, only now beginning to engage the second attacker. Strategy should dictate "get to the outside of Attacker 1, take on Attacker 2 while maiming Attacker 1". The process should be immediate, and the key is to allow the conscious mind to focus on strategy during the chaos of an engagement, while the less surficial brain functions execute skills honed in specific "technique" based training.

While true spontaneity is the objective, it is also one of the hardest to achieve. Most Black Belts at roughly 3rd BB or higher do a decent job of tailoring motions to fit scenarios after having poured through their catalogue of rehearsed motions for years on end, as stated in the "cirriculum". Buzz words like "extensions" and "grafting" come about to elicit a study of options and a pursuit of this nebulous thing we call spontaneity. Often times, though, the more stress that is poured on, the closer this sponteneity can resemble kickboxing-type fighting than the motions engrained in the drilling of techniques.

So, how to begin the integration process from the get-go? How to bring strategy and spontaneity into the forefront of the lower belt's kenpo? Would you expect your purple belt to truly integrate, "graft", or improvise with the same skill and accuracy he/she executes prescribed techniques? Is this a subject for higher belt levels only, when this notion of "sufficient mastery of basic motions" or (insert your own definition of "black belt") is achieved, or something whose importance is as fundamental to effective fighting as a good neutral bow? If you see it as the latter, how do you teach this? What construct or connectivity do you offer a yellow belt to begin the odessey of putting all this together, while still maintaining semblance of order and direction in their training?

More a topic for discussion than specific questions. Come one, come all.

Thanks, salute

Steven Brown
UKF[/FONT]

 

[michaeledward]

[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]
So, how to begin the integration process from the get-go? How to bring strategy and spontaneity into the forefront of the lower belt's kenpo? Would you expect your purple belt to truly integrate, "graft", or improvise with the same skill and accuracy he/she executes prescribed techniques? Is this a subject for higher belt levels only, when this notion of "sufficient mastery of basic motions" or (insert your own definition of "black belt") is achieved, or something whose importance is as fundamental to effective fighting as a good neutral bow? If you see it as the latter, how do you teach this? What construct or connectivity do you offer a yellow belt to begin the odessey of putting all this together, while still maintaining semblance of order and direction in their training?

More a topic for discussion than specific questions. Come one, come all.

Steven Brown
[/FONT]

Question - How do you traing to be spontaneous?
Answer - Be spontaneous.

I think it is something most of us do not do enough. We hear tell of the 'Ring of Fire' black belt tests, where 6 more experienced practitioners would take on the student, one at a time or in combination, as the belt test. The student had to defend himself against unknown attacks. The student needed to read the incoming attacks and respond accordingly.

How often do we train in this manner, today? - For me, almost never.

I do think that the techniques of training spontenatity are too advanced for the lower belts. They are busy attempting to catalogue basic maneuvers, and then to sequence those basic maneuvers. I think if we were to try and add the processing of the Equation Formulation, we would overload the process, and the student would not retain any information.

One technique that I might consider as a tool for preparing the student to train a spontaneous technique, is to run the Kenpo Forms on bodies. Although we know Kenpo Forms do not represent a fight, but rather teach rules and principles, that everything has an opposite and reverse, there is nothing that prevents us from putting a body (or bodies) against a student's form.

As I look back on my training, so far. I think I could have handled some very basic 'spontenatity training' at the blue belt/green belt level. But then when the more complicated material kicked in at brown belt, I would have to turn the focus away from training to be spontaneous. At that earlier level, the unknown attacks would have had to been very basic, and certainly not multiple attacks, maybe a combination every once in a while. Recall that we do not experience combination attacks early in the system, anyhow, correct?

OK. I'm rambling enough ... one more thought, as one way to 'point the way' toward spontaneous action ... and I used this last week. There are some pairs of techniques that are the 'same-same'. You can use these techniques with a newer student to show spontaneous action. I am thinking of 'Thrusting Salute / Buckling Branch'. Once a student is familiar with the base move, these two techniques should be interchangable. I worked with a young student last week, who got very confused when we attempted to work this out. He could not comprehend running Buckling Branch against my right kick. It flustered him badly. We had to step through slowly and carefully executing the base move against my right kick, my left kick, and I even added in a right uppercut. For this student, he was working on cataloguing the techniques in his brain. I'm wondering if the test of spontenatity helped or hindered him .... we'll see this week, I think.

Thanks for listening.

 

[MJS]

[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]I had the fortune of experiencing a number of "kenpo-changing" classes last weekend when Marcus Buonfiglio came to Phoenix. I wanted to open up a discussion for anybody interested.

It can be said that there are a number paradigms in which we may view the techniques in the system. Sometimes, they might be seen in terms of the attacks they deal with and are grouped or categorized as such. At other times, we might learn the different power sources that the techniques offer. Some others might view them in terms their patterns, their emphasis on particular principles, or where one might be "grafted" into another. The notion of categories and similarities between these constructs help our minds organize the vast body of knowledge that is kenpo and break it into workable, bite size pieces, no surprise to anyone there.

With the emphasis of Mr. Buonfiglio's classes on multiple assailants, a number of techniques were viewed in terms of what they offer strategically. From this perspective, Delayed Sword for example does not teach us what to do against a right hand attack (the inward block teaches us that), rather it offers some simple motions while on the inside of the body with peripheral vision having scanned from ~7:30 to 3:00 through the course of the technique. Similarly, Captured Twigs does not teach what to do with a rear bear hug with arms pinned (the initial motion will deal with that), rather it allows us to deal with someone at 6:00 whilst we maintain visual clarity of ~9:00 to 3:00.

This brings about some valuable lessons. Take on a right arm attack (punch or grab) with a second person closing in from 3:00. Delayed Sword proper is not a good choice here, nor is Five Swords proper. But once having dealt with the initial attack, immediate footwork and selective contact manipulation can bring you to the outside, executing, say, a right inward block to the attacker's right tricep - functionally Delayed Sword aimed at 1:00 - 3:00, only now beginning to engage the second attacker. Strategy should dictate "get to the outside of Attacker 1, take on Attacker 2 while maiming Attacker 1". The process should be immediate, and the key is to allow the conscious mind to focus on strategy during the chaos of an engagement, while the less surficial brain functions execute skills honed in specific "technique" based training.

While true spontaneity is the objective, it is also one of the hardest to achieve. Most Black Belts at roughly 3rd BB or higher do a decent job of tailoring motions to fit scenarios after having poured through their catalogue of rehearsed motions for years on end, as stated in the "cirriculum". Buzz words like "extensions" and "grafting" come about to elicit a study of options and a pursuit of this nebulous thing we call spontaneity. Often times, though, the more stress that is poured on, the closer this sponteneity can resemble kickboxing-type fighting than the motions engrained in the drilling of techniques.

So, how to begin the integration process from the get-go? How to bring strategy and spontaneity into the forefront of the lower belt's kenpo? Would you expect your purple belt to truly integrate, "graft", or improvise with the same skill and accuracy he/she executes prescribed techniques? Is this a subject for higher belt levels only, when this notion of "sufficient mastery of basic motions" or (insert your own definition of "black belt") is achieved, or something whose importance is as fundamental to effective fighting as a good neutral bow? If you see it as the latter, how do you teach this? What construct or connectivity do you offer a yellow belt to begin the odessey of putting all this together, while still maintaining semblance of order and direction in their training?

More a topic for discussion than specific questions. Come one, come all.

Thanks, salute

Steven Brown
UKF[/FONT]

I'm going out on a big limb here, quoting Clyde, but he always made reference to Enivronment and Target Availibility. For me, I've always looking at the techniques as a foundation, rather than something that was 'set in stone.' During a technique line, I'd often, even with the lower belts, have the 'attacker' throw out an attack that the student wasn't familiar with. They'd have a look on their face like, "Ok, I dont know a technique for that attack yet, so what do I do???" I would ask them if they knew how to block, punch and kick? They'd say yes. I'd then say, "Ok, then do it!" Perhaps they didn't execute the text book Crossing Talon, but I got them to react. If they did a kick to the knee, a left palm to the face and pulled their hand out, IMO, they defended themselves.

In the above mentioned scenario, if the attack was a rt. hand lapel grab, rather than doing Delayed Sword, leaving our 3 o clock side open, we could counter with a wrist/arm lock, turning clock wise. We're now facing our other attacker, as well as dealing with the first attack, using them as a shield for the moment. This is only one of many possible answers, as I said above, environment and target avail. should play a part.

I feel that the lower students should have a good understanding of the techs. first, before they start trying to graft into something, but I see nothing wrong with gradually having them start to think outside the box, at the lower belts.

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

I reject the target "and" environment senerio considering target availability is a direct fighting master key. When dealing with situations, however, you are better served by the eight considerations of combat. When combat is is about to occur or is occuring your mind should be flooded with concepts such as securing an angle of desired positioning or exploiting the weakest base of support. The eight considerations were put in a specific order for a reason and dumping it for a more simplistic model will leave you making up concepts such as "even if" when it was already provided for you by the seventh consideration. Secondly, choosing to adhere to a technique idea over the course of an everchanging situation would be scuicide.
Sean

 

[Hand Sword]

Good question. Makes me think of someone training for many years, then gets swung at, one day, and simply throws their arrms up to defend the punch. I feel that we are programmed to move in the most effecient manner, in which most techniques are not built off of. So I would agree with training to be spontaneous and build from there.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I reject the target "and" environment senerio considering target availability is a direct fighting master key. When dealing with situations, however, you are better served by the eight considerations of combat. When combat is is about to occur or is occuring your mind should be flooded with concepts such as securing an angle of desired positioning or exploiting the weakest base of support. The eight considerations were put in a specific order for a reason and dumping it for a more simplistic model will leave you making up concepts such as "even if" when it was already provided for you by the seventh consideration. Secondly, choosing to adhere to a technique idea over the course of an everchanging situation would be scuicide.
Sean

I'm sort of with what you're saying but...when in combat the LAST thing you want is your mind flooded with anything. Think "Hick's law" on this one if you want. The more stuff you have going on the more time it takes to process it all(either a human brain or a computer for that matter). In real combat you don't have the luxury of time. Keep it Simply Simple. Also the concepts you selected of "angle of desired postioning and exploiting the weakest base support" is a long way of saying "target acquisition". The whole debate of the cycle of considerations (8 or 9 depending on who's counting) being narrowed down (to 2 in this case) is circular. Everytime someone shoots down the "target and environment" idea they invariably mention concpets that lead right back to target and environment.

Example:

1) Angle of desired positioning = your postion in the environment relative to the opponents

2) Exploiting the weakest base support = attacking the most effective target

Sometimes I wonder "if these ideas were presented by anyone other than Clyde would they meet so much resistance?".

Adhereing to the technique idea can be suicide depending on the relative skills of those involved. It all comes back to "position recognition" in the end. Something the grappling systems stress to no end and the boxing/kickboxing systems. Come to think of it all the systems that actually use their "deadly techniques" in practice against resistance stress "postion recognition" and this goes back to two things again Target and Environment. "Even-If" is position recognition. If it works so successfully for other systems why does the Kenpo crowd have such an issue with it? Is it because Clyde said it or because Mr. Parker (a man not a God) didn't? it's all circular anyway. Different, ever more complex ways of saying the same thing. Just like taking 10-13 techniques and turning them into 154+ variations. Or taking 154+ variations and narrowing them down to 10-13.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm sort of with what you're saying but...when in combat the LAST thing you want is your mind flooded with anything. Think "Hick's law" on this one if you want. The more stuff you have going on the more time it takes to process it all(either a human brain or a computer for that matter). In real combat you don't have the luxury of time. Keep it Simply Simple. Also the concepts you selected of "angle of desired postioning and exploitiing the weakest base support" is a long way of saying "target acquisition". The whole debate of the cycle of considerations (8 or 9 depending on who's counting) being narrowed down (to 2 in this case) is circular. Everytime someone shoots down the "target and environment" idea they invariable mention concpets that lead right back to target and environment.

Example:

1) Angle of desired positioning = your postion in the environment relative to the opponents

2) Exploiting the weakest base support = attacking the most effective target

Sometimes I wonder "if these ideas were presented by anyone other than Clyde would they meet so much resistance?".

Adhereing to the technique idea can be suicide depending on the relative skills of those involved. It all comes back to "position recognition" in the end. Something the grappling systems stress to no end and the boxing/kickboxing systems. Come to think of it all the systems that actually use their "deadly techniques" in practice against resistance stress "postion recognition" and this goes back to two things again Target and Environment. It's all circular.

Target aquisition and maintaining control of a situation are two different things no matter who came up with it.
Sean

 

[Mikael151]

As for multiple opponents; are you talking about the first attack coming from 12 O'clock and the the second coming from 3 0'clock? I can't imagine facing 12 0'clock in a RNB and then doing a right inward block to an attack coming from 3 0'clock.
Maybe I'm reading the original post wrong. But it's a good post with ideas to consider.

 

[bujuts]

As for multiple opponents; are you talking about the first attack coming from 12 O'clock and the the second coming from 3 0'clock? I can't imagine facing 12 0'clock in a RNB and then doing a right inward block to an attack coming from 3 0'clock.
Maybe I'm reading the original post wrong. But it's a good post with ideas to consider.

The key here is the foot work

....[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]once having dealt with the initial attack, immediate footwork and selective contact manipulation can bring you to the outside, executing, say, a right inward block to the attacker's right tricep - functionally Delayed Sword aimed at 1:00 - 3:00, only now beginning to engage the second attacker. Strategy should dictate "get to the outside of Attacker 1, take on Attacker 2 while maiming Attacker 1". [/FONT]

Move to the alpha's outside to be able to engage both of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In kenpo.

Steven Brown
UKF

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Target aquisition and maintaining control of a situation are two different things no matter who came up with it.
Sean

True, maintaining control of a situation often doesn't involve fighting at all. Of course here (in "Verbal Judo" per se)the environment could be viewed as the "social climate" and the target could be the persons "mind and disposition". So perhaps it's still a matter of environment and target, but it's all in your point of view anyway. Looking at the glass half full or half empty doesn't change the fact that it's a glass with something in it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

True, maintaining control of a situation often doesn't involve fighting at all. Of course here (in "Verbal Judo" per se)the environment could be viewed as the "social climate" and the target could be the persons "mind and disposition". So perhaps it's still a matter of environment and target, but it's all in your point of view anyway. Looking at the glass half full or half empty doesn't change the fact that it's a glass with something in it.

I would count Targets about 1/8th the whole.
Sean

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I would count Targets about 1/8th the whole.
Sean

Hmmm. Reminds me of the old Master Key analogy. Would you rather have 8 keys or 2 when the house is burning down?

But would you consider it 1/8 because that's what you feel is most effective for you or simply because your instructor's instructor said so? The world didn't end with what Mr. Parker suggested. New ideas can still have merit...

 

[bujuts]

Would you rather have 8 keys or 2 when the house is burning down?

I'd rather have my steel toed boots on, and kick every ****ing door that stood between me and living, LOL.

The eight considerations are good, yes, but mind the word "consideration". This means to intellectually ponder in a time of detached reflection, or when we take an analytical look at the process of combatives in these internet back and forth's. When the stuff his hitting the fan, when the light is green the adrenaline is pumping, the intellectual dialogues we have on the eight considerations by the way side. Nothing matters but strategy, scanning, and attacking, and the brain will be involved in little more.

While the eight considerations are valuable from an analytical standpoint, they don't deal with process. Our group describes the stages of an engagement as 1. Out of range, 2. In range, 3. Contact Penetration, 4. Impact Manipulation, 5. Contact Manipulation, 6. Contact Maintenance, 7. Release, and 8. Extraction. These form my mechanism, my process, not the eight considerations. Going to and through an enemy to take his physical body to the desired end is my intent, and the eight stages described above are pretty much my preferred order of things, per skeleton I encounter.

We should not "react" to targets, we create them. Nor should we really "react" to environment. The point of my original post was to bring up the idea of strategy, of YOUR choice in the engagement, not what the enemies dictate as the violence unfolds. Strategy is based on a quick decision on what you need to do, then doing it. Right hand, left hand attack be damned, because you really shouldn't care.

Those that have invaded my peace have warranted me bringing out my kenpo, my most cherished and favorite weapon, the one that I polish and talk about, the one in which I keep a full, and think about all damn day. They have made violence my only recourse, and so reacting to their actions is not really part of my equation.

Strategy and proactivity. Your thoughts?

Thanks for the dialogue thus far. Good stuff. Keep it coming.

Steven Brown
UKF

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'd rather have my steel toed boots on, and kick every ****ing door that stood between me and living, LOL.

The eight considerations are good, yes, but mind the word "consideration". This means to intellectually ponder in a time of detached reflection, or when we take an analytical look at the process of combatives in these internet back and forth's. When the stuff his hitting the fan, when the light is green the adrenaline is pumping, the intellectual dialogues we have on the eight considerations by the way side. Nothing matters but strategy, scanning, and attacking, and the brain will be involved in little more.

While the eight considerations are valuable from an analytical standpoint, they don't deal with process. Our group describes the stages of an engagement as 1. Out of range, 2. In range, 3. Contact Penetration, 4. Impact Manipulation, 5. Contact Manipulation, 6. Contact Maintenance, 7. Release, and 8. Extraction. These form my mechanism, my process, not the eight considerations. Going to and through an enemy to take his physical body to the desired end is my intent, and the eight stages described above are pretty much my preferred order of things, per skeleton I encounter.

We should not "react" to targets, we create them. Nor should we really "react" to environment. The point of my original post was to bring up the idea of strategy, of YOUR choice in the engagement, not what the enemies dictate as the violence unfolds. Strategy is based on a quick decision on what you need to do, then doing it. Right hand, left hand attack be damned, because you really shouldn't care.

Those that have invaded my peace have warranted me bringing out my kenpo, my most cherished and favorite weapon, the one that I polish and talk about, the one in which I keep a full, and think about all damn day. They have made violence my only recourse, and so reacting to their actions is not really part of my equation.

Strategy and proactivity. Your thoughts?

Thanks for the dialogue thus far. Good stuff. Keep it coming.

Steven Brown
UKF

The eight considerations do deal with dimensional stages of action actually and are a process.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hmmm. Reminds me of the old Master Key analogy. Would you rather have 8 keys or 2 when the house is burning down?

But would you consider it 1/8 because that's what you feel is most effective for you or simply because your instructor's instructor said so? The world didn't end with what Mr. Parker suggested. New ideas can still have merit...

I know but there is something unique about what Mr. Parker suggested. I can see throwing it out if you don't understand, however.
Sean

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I'd rather have my steel toed boots on, and kick every ****ing door that stood between me and living, LOL.

The eight considerations are good, yes, but mind the word "consideration". This means to intellectually ponder in a time of detached reflection, or when we take an analytical look at the process of combatives in these internet back and forth's. When the stuff his hitting the fan, when the light is green the adrenaline is pumping, the intellectual dialogues we have on the eight considerations by the way side. Nothing matters but strategy, scanning, and attacking, and the brain will be involved in little more.

While the eight considerations are valuable from an analytical standpoint, they don't deal with process. Our group describes the stages of an engagement as 1. Out of range, 2. In range, 3. Contact Penetration, 4. Impact Manipulation, 5. Contact Manipulation, 6. Contact Maintenance, 7. Release, and 8. Extraction. These form my mechanism, my process, not the eight considerations. Going to and through an enemy to take his physical body to the desired end is my intent, and the eight stages described above are pretty much my preferred order of things, per skeleton I encounter.

We should not "react" to targets, we create them. Nor should we really "react" to environment. The point of my original post was to bring up the idea of strategy, of YOUR choice in the engagement, not what the enemies dictate as the violence unfolds. Strategy is based on a quick decision on what you need to do, then doing it. Right hand, left hand attack be damned, because you really shouldn't care.

Those that have invaded my peace have warranted me bringing out my kenpo, my most cherished and favorite weapon, the one that I polish and talk about, the one in which I keep a full, and think about all damn day. They have made violence my only recourse, and so reacting to their actions is not really part of my equation.

Strategy and proactivity. Your thoughts?

Thanks for the dialogue thus far. Good stuff. Keep it coming.

Steven Brown
UKF

Exactly my viewpoint. I think what what goes on during analysis (training time) and what goes on during confrontation (fighting time) are often confused, most often by those who have never dealt with confrontation and have only their training and theory to rely on. Sharp post.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I know but there is something unique about what Mr. Parker suggested. I can see throwing it out if you don't understand, however.
Sean

It's not as unique as you seem to think. When I studied Ju Jitsu there prior to ever hearing of kenpo was a similar list of cosnsiderations with different names. And this system predates kenpo by quite a number of decades.

Understanding and acceptance are two different things. Years ago people understood how and why a candle works and what it was used for, but they didn't accept it as being the best that could ever be done and therefore other sources of light were researched...

 

[IWishToLearn]

Exactly my viewpoint. I think what what goes on during analysis (training time) and what goes on during confrontation (fighting time) are often confused, most often by those who have never dealt with confrontation and have only their training and theory to rely on. Sharp post.

Agreed. Having had only a couple of actual street fights, and only one since high school myself, I try to interact with as many people who do frequently get into "scraps" and "altercations" as I can as a means to make my training scenarios more realistic. Great points by you both.

 

[distalero]

Echoing the wisdom in this thread, but casting a somewhat different light on it: true spontaneity is unconscious; just that simple, and just that elusive. It either happens or it doesn't, but there is no training for an unconscious act directly. I know this might cause a negative response; fire away. True spontaneity is the ultimate that can be hoped for; it's true mastery, not of acts, techniques, environment, but of yourself. I know, it's sounds like the usual "eastern" cliche, but think about it, true (unconscious) spontaneity is the totality, there is no breaking it down into parts per se. Those who claim that mastery aries out of some act, or science of acts, leave this part out. Yes, learning responses in the lab of the dojo is what we do, but that is indirect to true spontaneity. In true spontaneity the chin rushes at the fist. Hard to find a partner that will do that

 

[matt.m]

I practice Tae Kwon Do so this post fits in my world as well.

Look, so many people get wrapped up in one step sparring and other sparring drills. They are great sparring and training aids.

However, if you can't look past the technique you will have a hard time. The only way to get past that mentality is reps, reps, reps.

What is the biggest difference between watching a white/yellow belt spar and a red/black belt spar.

The answer is easy, reps. It is still a bunch of front, side and round kicks.