Variations

[RCastillo]

Being that I run a small club, and with so many variations in the system. I want to work away from breaking it down, and teach the techniques as a whole. I understand why it was done on a business/student development, but I'm not sure I want to go that way anymore. I remember years ago when I started, "Crash of The Eagle ' was taught whole, w/o the breakdown.

Of course, the system will remain intact as it has always been.

Any comments form the rest of the Kenpo Community?

Thanks:asian:

 

[pete]

we do c.o.t.e. first pulling the the attacker in by collapsing his left arm, setting up the elbow/claw in close range. at the next level, we teach a variation where the arm is not collapsed, the attacker's head is not brought into close range, so a half fist to the throat is used. later, in the brown-1 level, we do a tech called circling wing, which retailates with an eye-strike/upper cut combination, and goes on to several joint manipulations to restrain, then down the opponent.

are you suggesting rather than build upon the technique as the student progresses, to instead teach all the variations to the technique up front?

I kinda do this with capture twigs, rising elbow, circling elbow for rear bear hugs, because beginners tend to ask what happens if attacker pins your arms. however some of the other material may be better to be gradually taught step by step. i find nothing wrong with modifying the sequence of introducing techniques as long as the material is not overwhelming to the student at a particular level.

for example, i find teaching checking the storm at yellow belt may give the beginner too much confidence against a weapon attack, and prefer to hold it aside until purple or blue level.

pete.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

We made variations optional for yellow-green belt students. If the student could handle the additional material, we would teach it to him. If it slowed the student down, we focused on the core variation for that belt level. We could make this individual tailoring work since we gave everyone private lessons as well as group. If the student was going to start teaching, they were required to learn all the variations for all previous, current, and next belts.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, as some might predict, I think that it is a terrible idea for the overwhelming majority of teachers to fiddle around with the teaching system.

I also think that the variations should be left alone; they will develop pretty much on their own, with a solid grounding in the basics and enough practice.

I must say, too, that it is impossible to teach ALL the "variations," which I'd call "applications."

And, I'm afraid, I continue to think that most of these discussions say a lot more about us as teachers than about our students as learners.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Robert: Within EPAK's 250 technique system, there is debate on whether or not to teach the official 24 technique curriculum or the more recent 16 technique curriculum. In the 600 technique-variation Tracy system, there has not been a similar formal attempt at curriclum modification. Many Kenpoists found the 24 technique system daunting. The memorization within Tracy's system is even more daunting. I can support attempts to simplify the system at lower ranks--as long a catch-up occurs in the advanced ranks. I think this is the philosophy behind the EPAK 16 technique curriculum.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Why is it streamlining a system to chop the number of techniques and increase the number of variations?

I'd also really like to see, sometime, the logic behind the cuts that get made. Don't really care about the numbers--care about the reasons, the rationales.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

It's a little different in the Tracy System. Many of the technique variations are for slight alterations in the attacks or to graft on different endings or add extensions. The core techniques are not as clearly separate as the EPAK core 154. So the Tracy practitioner who wants to make the curriculum size similar to EPAK has much more discretion.

One option--I think the one Mr. Castillo is considering--would be to teach the variation including the extension. Other options would be the type I mentioned where variations are withheld for the less capable students until intermediate or advanced rank.

 

[Michael Billings]

I think one of the drawbacks of the way some instructors structure their material, makes it difficult for the average student, who has a hard time delaying gratification, to see the results of their efforts. The 16 Technique system formulated by Brian Duffy, was structured according to the Web of Knowledge, in an attempt to organize the techniques logically by belt, and what Form or Set you were working on. It is not perfect, but does nicely spread the material out so that there are not such large chunks when you are first starting the Art.

The Yellow Belt chart is a good example of this. It gives lots of basics and Principles in a timely fashion. The student then has a taste or passion for Kenpo, and has learned a technique for 6 of the catagories of attack, and I think this pattern is part of what Brian Duffy used when formulating the 16 Tech Charts.

I am not saying it is good or bad, I personally use it, even though it had not been invented at the time I started Kenpo, or had my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Black. It just is a good, logical framework, and the Black Belt extensions are learned at Black, not for Black, and there is plenty of material to keep the new Black Belt around ... a time when you used to lose people.

Anyhow, that is my perception of it.

-Michael