KENPO: CHUCK SULLIVAN & VIC LEROUX
Fourzone
I have been following the thread going on here about the IKCA and how some feel
that because they only have 55 techniques that the system is incomplete. Well
the fact is that the 55 techniques are a base to work with, the idea is to
borrow and combine techniques.
I have been training with the IKCA since 1992 and have also trained with others
from Parker, Tracy, Tatum, Fowler etc. I have found the IKCA to be a very
responsible curriculum that is feasible.
I mean come on guys, 24 techniques per belt? This is a total joke. Nobody can
learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean like
the back of your hand. Even 55 techniques are tough to get to know
spontaneously.
They have also combined in their system elements from other arts, which makes
it more complete in my opinion. If you ask anyone that is anyone in Kenpo
about Chuck Sullivan or Vic LeRoux, you will get nothing but good things about
them.
I will be writing an article for my website soon on disecting techniques for
enhanced performance, so look for it within the next couple of weeks.
Respectfully,
Al Perhacs
FOUR ZONE FIGHTING SYSTEMS
http://members.aol.com/fourzone
Fourzone
>Can someone tell me about the backgrounds of Chuck Sullivan And Vic Leroux
>, sorry I'm on the east coast and were always the last to find these things
>out :)
Chuck was the 4th Blackbelt under Ed Parker, and still teaches Kenpo today.
Vic: Got his Blackbelt from Chuck and Ed Parker. Has extensive training in
Filipino Styles and JKD. Has studied with Inosanto, Poteet and others. Did JKD
for about 10 years, blending it with his Kenpo. Also a very good fighter
within the Kenpo system
I will respond to your post, but will keep it short and sweet. Techniques are
drills designed to give the student a reference point in training. No
technique rarely goes off the way you practice it. In real situations you
must:
1. Respond (Block, Evade)
2. Targets ( Which ones are exposed)
3. Counterstrike (Weapon)
It's the ability to respond or react with a counter strike which matters, so
long as you are protecting center line and retaliating with appropriate force.
Techniques and drills bring out these attributes, and in my opinion you would
be better off with a couple methods that work for you, than having to think
about the technique that you learned the other day in class.
People respond how they are taught. If they are taught in that type of
situation they will respond to it as trained.
Respectfully,
Al Perhacs
http://members.aol.com/fourzone
>
Dear Fellow posters,
Can someone tell me about the backgrounds of Chuck Sullivan And Vic Leroux
, sorry I'm on the east coast and were always the last to find these things
out :)
Who did they study with and all that good stuff.
In the past we saw sometimes people didn't pay enough attention to who
taught who ,and thus we spend all this time on ridiculous history
converstations , where noone really has enough proof to be sure of what
they are talking about. Lets make sure we learn the history of our and
others arts ,so that if we ever become teachers we can teach our students
accurate history.
Now to the subject of the posting.
We already know that I feel less techniques are better, but I also feel
that if the schools with lots of techniques can effectively teach the
student the concepts and principles of the art, that is also acceptable.
But I need to ask someone who may know, as I'm not really sure. Aren't most
of the older styles that are brought over to the U.S. mostly styles based
on few techniques. I have heard stories of some jui-jitsu styles that only
consisted of something like 15 techniques.
Going with the spirit of the posting , I believe however that these 15
techniques are ultimately changed into 1000's of techniques as the students
learn to flow and adapt.
So it seems to me that it is not the number of techniques one has but , how
well these techniques help the student to understand the concepts and
principles and be able to adapt.
Also on the technique issue. I feel sometimes we tend to overlook some
things. Do you have a million techniques that just deal with a "striking"
type situation. Do any of these techniques deal with grappling situations?
Do you have the ability to use your concepts and principles of your art to
grapple as well as strike.
My point here is that , we must focus on the whole picture. My fellow Kenpo
men or martial artist. If you specialize in just stand up fighting ,you
risk getting beat when put in the unfamilar grappling situation , same goes
for just a pure grappler.
So my point is your techniques (no matter how few, or how many you have)
should deal with different distancing , and different situations. If your
art only deals with standup fighting , maybe you should invite a friend
who's art deals with throws and chokes, or maybe a wrestler, or even a
different type striker.
Look at the the other guys art , see how he deals with what you do , look
at the similarities of what you each do. See how you can incorporate what
they do into your art. If your knowledge of your art is solid enough you
should be able to apply the concepts and principles you have learned and
apply the other aspects without sacrificing the concepts and principles of
your art.
If we look at all the "original" Kempo/Kenpo systems that almost every
Kenpo system we know of is based off of. You will notice that there was
striking, grappling, choking, punches,kicks, jointlocks,throws etc. in the
system. We may have gotten away from it in the past, but now I see most of
the systems heading back towards what they used to do. Alot of teachers are
breaking away from their systems and calling what they do a new system ,but
the truth is there is nothing new under the sun ,especaily in the martial
arts.
So no matter how many techniques you have , practice to deal with a self
defense situation in a practical manner. Sometimes in a self defense
situation you have to go to the ground and grapple, sometimes you have to
stand and fight ,learn to be comfortable in all the situations NO MATTER
HOW MANY DAMN TECHNIQUES YOU HAVE!!!!
thanks for listening and reading my thoughts , I hope to hear from you and
good luck in all you do.
Richard (kungming)
kung...@ici.net
Http://www.ici.net/cust_pages/kungming/kungming.html
Fourzone
>Thanks Al , I was being diplomatic, In the art I study we don't have any
>techniques , just principles and cocepts, kinda like Jkd , as close as
>Kempo can get I guess.
Sounds very much like Kosho Shrei Ryu Kempo with Bruce Juchnick (sp). I am
looking into training with him as I have heard that he has the best
understanding of integrating concepts and principles into fighting. I to like
the JKD type approach, "No way is Way"!
Respectfully,
Al Perhacs
Devhop
>I mean come on guys, 24 techniques per belt?
Actually, it's 30, except of course for Yellow Belt, which is 10.
>Nobody can
> learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean like
> the back of your hand.
Some of us can, and do. Not everyone can, though. My point is, and remains,
that the amount of knowledge I am able to be exposed to should not be limited
by the ability or desires of others.
Teach it all, and let people get from it what they can.
Ed Parker, page 83, Infinite Insights: Volume 1
"Why eliminate formulas and equations knowing that they afford us guidelines to
true solutions? Take advantage of every learning tool that contributes to
your martial arts training. To do so is to become self correcting. Why is
this so? Because knowledge of working formulas and equations allows you the
privelege of working and solving other problems whether they require
pre-conceived planning or instantaneous application."
>Even 55 techniques are tough to get to know
> spontaneously.
Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux thought that the entire system of kenpo was this
way, so they based their style on the 55 techniques that they thought
contained the essential ingredients for success.
Now you think that their 55 is tough, so if you follow in their footsteps, and
devise a system of, say, 40 techniques, and your students do the same, pretty
soon someone will run an ad in "Black Belt" claiming that their "one" kenpo
technique, developed by years of refinement, can allow anyone to kick any
Black Belt Master's butt after watching this 20 minute video.
If you keep chipping away at the stone, there is not going to be enough rock to
sculpt the martial artists and kenpoists of the next generations.
> If you ask anyone that is anyone in Kenpo
> about Chuck Sullivan or Vic LeRoux, you will get nothing but good things
>about
> them.
And I would not say anything bad about them. But IKCA is what works for them.
Ed Parker, same page, same book:
"What may be true for one individual may not be true for another."
"You must, however, never discard, but store the knowledge you have learned.
You may one day need it so reserve it for a time or a person who will."
Kenpocrow
>So what your saying is that you can use every technique in your system without
ever thinking about it? >
Of course! Can't you?
ken
Devhop
>So what your saying is that you can use every technique in your system
>without
> ever thinking about it?
I do have an advantage in that my students range from white to black belt, and
I teach this as a full time job, so I am doing and verbalizing the gamut of
the system daily. Most people practice an hour or two a day if they are
dedicated, and so do I, but I also teach about 10 hours a day.
.>I will bet that most kenpo guys like everyone else have
> their favorite 5 or 10 techniques, and given a stressfull situation, revert
> back to those, and never even think about the other ones.
Yes, I do have my favorites, but my kenpo is constantly evolving. Techniques
that were difficult become favorites, and old favorites sometimes resurface
when I learn something from a more advanced technique to apply to it.
But if I only taught my favorites to my students, they would be cheated and
only evolve into clones of me. Then, kenpo would no longer be a martial art,
no individual expression. It would just be Dave's Karate, which is great for
me, but not necessarily everyone else.
My top student does not resemble me in his application of techniques, and his
favorites are different from mine, as mine are different from my instructor,
and his are different...
Dave
Fourzone
>Actually, it's 30, except of course for Yellow Belt, which is 10.
>
>>Nobody can
>> learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean
>like
>> the back of your hand.
>
>Some of us can, and do. Not everyone can, though. My point is, and remains,
> that the amount of knowledge I am able to be exposed to should not be
>limited
> by the ability or desires of others.
>
So what your saying is that you can use every technique in your system without
ever thinking about it?
>Now you think that their 55 is tough, so if you follow in their footsteps,
55 is not tough to learn, and I have also studied other kenpo techniques, as a
matter of fact all of the ones that you say you can do. What is tough is being
able to do each technique spontaineously one after another in a drill or
sparring setting. I will bet that most kenpo guys like everyone else have
their favorite 5 or 10 techniques, and given a stressfull situation, revert
back to those, and never even think about the other ones.
The fact is that Parker added techniques not because he thought they would be
more effective, but so that he would have more to sell. Parker didn't even
know all the techniques that well, and that is just a truth of having too much
of a good thing.
If you can do hundreds of techniques without ever thinking about it or looking
at a reference in a realistic like setting ( drills/ sparring), then I take my
hat off to you.
Respectfully,
Al Perhacs
Dave Sheehy
> >I mean come on guys, 24 techniques per belt?
Actually you're both right. Parker's older technique manual was 32
techniques per belt. Later, the manual was revised to 24 techniques per
belt supposedly so that Parker could promote a bunch of black belts to
higher degrees without requiring them to learn a bunch of new material.
> >Nobody can
> > learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean like
> > the back of your hand.
> Some of us can, and do. Not everyone can, though. My point is, and remains,
> that the amount of knowledge I am able to be exposed to should not be limited
> by the ability or desires of others.
I think we're all on the same page with regard to spreading the knowledge.
The point I and others are trying to make is that techniques do not
necessarily equal knowledge. There are other (perhaps better) ways of
imparting knowledge (or certain kinds of knowledge) than just techniques.
> Teach it all, and let people get from it what they can.
I think we all agree on this point.
> Ed Parker, page 83, Infinite Insights: Volume 1
> "Why eliminate formulas and equations knowing that they afford us guidelines to
> true solutions? Take advantage of every learning tool that contributes to
> your martial arts training. To do so is to become self correcting. Why is
> this so? Because knowledge of working formulas and equations allows you the
> privelege of working and solving other problems whether they require
> pre-conceived planning or instantaneous application."
Nice quote. Notice though that Parker says not one thing here about
techniques. Formulas, equations, and guidelines yes but nothing here
about techniques. I especially like this sentence "Take advantage of every
learning tool that contributes to your martial arts training." Techniques
are one such tool but that is the point. They are only one such tool.
> Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux thought that the entire system of kenpo was this
> way, so they based their style on the 55 techniques that they thought
> contained the essential ingredients for success.
> Now you think that their 55 is tough, so if you follow in their footsteps, and
> devise a system of, say, 40 techniques, and your students do the same, pretty
> soon someone will run an ad in "Black Belt" claiming that their "one" kenpo
> technique, developed by years of refinement, can allow anyone to kick any
> Black Belt Master's butt after watching this 20 minute video.
> If you keep chipping away at the stone, there is not going to be enough
> rock to sculpt the martial artists and kenpoists of the next generations.
Parker and several other high ranking black belts have always maintained
that in truth there are only a handful of techniques. Every other technique
is a variation of one of that handful of "generic" techniques. That is the
point I've been pursuing all along. Teach the generic techniques. Teach
people how to take them apart and put them back together again to create
unique techniques that fit a particular situation. If you use techniques as
a teaching tool to show them how to do that fine but always relate it back
to the generic technique(s) and one uses the principles and concepts to do
it. If you do that your students will have access to an infinite number of
techniques that they don't have to remember but rather construct as needed
using the rules of the system burned as spinal column reflex.
> Ed Parker, same page, same book:
> "What may be true for one individual may not be true for another."
> "You must, however, never discard, but store the knowledge you have learned.
> You may one day need it so reserve it for a time or a person who will."
Amen. You keep on doing what you do and I'll keep on doing what I do. I
started this whole thread because I wanted to gain some insight into the
way you and other people do things. It doesn't make sense to me to focus
on techniques to such an apparent extreme (from my point of view anyway).
Therefore, I sought some clarification as to why you do things the way you
do.
Dave Sheehy
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
After many years in Kenpo Karate and other arts, i can say all of this is true, for
truth, really, is different for each of us by way of 1)body type 2)philosophy
3)training ethic 4)physical condition and finally 5)mind set in relation to MA.
-Yours in the Martial Arts
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
Fourzone wrote:
> I have been following the thread going on here about the IKCA and how some feel
> that because they only have 55 techniques that the system is incomplete. Well
> the fact is that the 55 techniques are a base to work with, the idea is to
> borrow and combine techniques.
>
> I have been training with the IKCA since 1992 and have also trained with others
> from Parker, Tracy, Tatum, Fowler etc. I have found the IKCA to be a very
> responsible curriculum that is feasible.
>
> I mean come on guys, 24 techniques per belt? This is a total joke. Nobody can
> learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean like
> the back of your hand. Even 55 techniques are tough to get to know
> spontaneously.
>
I think that you misunderstand the basic idea of Kenpo here. First i have trained
as well and it is important for me to pick, out of the hundreads of techniques
those which suit me best as per my body type, personal style and how my body moves
best. If that came out to 55 then great i have narrowed down what i should
concentrate on. The problem with Sullivan and Leroux is this, when i narrow down
that 560 techniques in kenpo for black belt to 100 that I (stress 'I' here) think
are best and eliminate the rest, then i teach you, you narrow it down further to 50
cause hey, those other 50 didn't work well for you, then you open your own school
and teach students, your prize student opens a school and narrows it down to 10 and
so on and so on until you get to the oint where there is some lunatic that says
'Well, after thousands of years of evolution I have narrowed Kenpo Karate down to
ONE ALL POWERFUL technique, it is all you need to master to be a powerful fighter.
I am sorry to say this is how MA gets bastardized. It is not for me to say what
techniques i should teach, i have been teaching for years there are techniques i
hate and those i like, but to keep the system pure and maintain some continuity in
the system i teach them all as they were taught to me, when a student say 'Hey i
love that technique it';s my favorite' about one i absolutly hate it reinforces the
reason why i teach it, because everyone is different and you cannot decide whats
best for them.
Just think about what i have said, it was said to me many years ago by some of the
'movers and shakers in Karate' and it has come to be more and more true everyday.
> They have also combined in their system elements from other arts, which makes
> it more complete in my opinion. If you ask anyone that is anyone in Kenpo
> about Chuck Sullivan or Vic LeRoux, you will get nothing but good things about
> them.
>
No, that is not true, you will hear nothing but good things about when they were in
Parkers Kenpo, not about what they are doing now. This IS the general consensus.
Devhop
First off, I am from the "more technique" school. This does not mean that I
think a guy who knows 700 techniques is automatically better than one who
doesn't. It depends on the training of the individual doing the techniques.
I do believe that repetition and study of the techniques leads to an
understanding of the concepts and principles of kenpo, while at the same time,
creating muscle memory and exposing one to a variety of situations.
That being said, what concerns me the most about fewer techniques being taught
is the loss of knowledge. James Mitose died without teaching "all of kenpo"
to anyone. It bothers me that of the 700 original techniques, I only know
about 400. I may never use them all, but I want to know and be exposed to
them. I want the ones that I use to evolve as my knowledge and experience
grows. I want to uncover new principles that I may not have seen yet.
The complete style of kenpo is not available to us anymore. What is available
to us has been altered, modified, added to, taken from and so on for about 40
years by many people and many groups. It is still kenpo and still evolving,
but to limit what is taught seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
Dave
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
I think you are missing my point. I have taught many arts as well, big deal, that
has nothing to do with the basic point. The principals ARE in the techniques, if
you are teaching kenpo and don't know that you aren't teaching kenpo. Also the
techniques were never meant to be used as they are in the dojo, the principals will
be taken from those techniques and used in any way that works for the student. Many
of the principals will not work well for everyone, but it is important to teach
them all because what doesn't work for you will work for others.
A true martial artsist will make themselves aware of the internal side of the art,
but i will be the first to tell, after fighting all my life, you needen't know
internal to be a fighter. I do not use the techniques in sparring as i said that is
not what they are for, it is a way to passs on the knowledge. I use what works best
for me. A far as Bruce Juchnick is concerned i have trained with his black belts in
his art, they lack direction in their teaching. If you are teaching in a group
class situation and teach one concept a day for a year very few people will
remember any of those concepts if they never see it again, and that happens in the
kosho shori system.
Yours in the Martial Arts
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
You may notice i am NOT selling videos.
RONIN®
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham <mama...@is2.dal.ca> scribbled with their
Crayola:
>when i narrow down
>that 560 techniques in kenpo for black belt to 100 that I (stress 'I' here) think
>are best and eliminate the rest, then i teach you, you narrow it down further to 50
>cause hey, those other 50 didn't work well for you, then you open your own school
>and teach students, your prize student opens a school and narrows it down to 10 and
>so on and so on until you get to the oint where there is some lunatic that says
>'Well, after thousands of years of evolution I have narrowed Kenpo Karate down to
>ONE ALL POWERFUL technique, it is all you need to master to be a powerful fighter.
Now THAT...I'd pay to see...
RONIN®
"I come to you with only Karate, empty hands,
I have no weapons, but should I be forced to defend myself,
my principles or my honor, should it be a matter of life or death,
of right or wrong; then here are my weapons,
Karate, my empty hands."
--Ed Parker--
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
Exactly. And this is where all of the problems occur in the martial arts today, one
guy gets it in his mind he can revolutionize hundreadsn of years of time proven
material in his life time, not gonna happen.
Jivita wrote:
> Shouldn't one learn those 700 techniques, pass on those 700 techniques but only
> use what works best for them?
>
> Maybe one of the things that made Kenpo what it is,is the versitility that
> comes with 700 techniques.
>
> Jimmer
Fourzone
>Maybe one of the things that made Kenpo what it is,is the versitility that
> comes with 700 techniques.
use any large percentage of those techniques is unrealistic.
I had posted in the past that less technique is better, but let me be clear
that I am constantly learning new techniques to hone my skills. The difference
is I look at how effective a new technique and how practicle it is. Kenpo is a
technique driven art, and as such relies to heavily on those techniques. How
many times do you see kenpo guys advertising kenpo manuals? The reason they do
is because "THEY CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER ALL THE TECHNIQUES". I have seminare
footage of Ed Parker saying to one of his assistants, "What was that
technique"?
My point is that technique is great as long as you look at it as a drill that
is part of the process of creating "Real-Time" fighting abilities.
Instead of knowing 700 Kenpo techniques, you probably would be better off with
100 techniques from 7 diverse styles or 50 techniques from 14. This way you
are not boxed in to "The Kenpo Only" or the "Your art here" type of situation.
Some of the best fighting arts, Silat, JKD, Wing Chun and others concentrate on
fighting principles and concepts yet know how to fight within those respective
styles. "Lines" of attack and how to counter is infinately more important than
which technique to use on an attack.
Don't get me wrong, I love Kenpo and like alot of the techinques, but when you
need to get a student up to speed on how to fight, is more technique the
answer or teachnig them how to "Respond and Retaliate" in a crisp and
effective manne? My goal is that a student should be able to handle themselves
in an altercation after a very short period of time.
Dave Sheehy
> Shouldn't one learn those 700 techniques, pass on those 700 techniques but
> only use what works best for them?
Well, that depends on your point of view.
> Maybe one of the things that made Kenpo what it is,is the versitility that
> comes with 700 techniques.
That is perhaps the crux of the debate. Some people say yes, others no. I
personally disagree with the above statement.
Dave Sheehy
Fourzone
>The techniques are not
>meant, and never were, to be fired off in a street situation. They are
>essentially
>devoid of real time usefulness.
My estimation of how good a martial art is the following
1. Ability to Learn Concepts, Methods, Tactics quickly
2. Cover all 4 zones of attack
3. Be able to use them immediately
4. Keep it simple
The best martial artists I know are good at doing the basics very well, which
means you will not be able to get off any fancy techniques that are not burnt
into your muscle memory.
My Chinese Boxing instructor will not let you enter, period. He uses basic
Chinese Boxing techniques, but you will not get in unless he wants you to. He
showed me how ineffective alot of what I spent years learning was in real
application against a skilled person.
Now of course Kenpo or any other art will work real well against some dope on
the street or a drunk in a bar, but trying some of these things on someone
good, and look out.
I still practice Kenpo techniques to this day, but also do Silat, Chinese
Boxing, Internal Kung Fu, Grappling and some others just to keep me honest.
I train about 1-1.5 hours per day, work full time for a software company and
teach private lessons at night. The point I'm making is that in order for me
to do 700 techniques within the kenpo system, most of which are redundant when
would I have time to work on my other skills?
I think Bruce Lee said it well, and that is "Retain what is usefull and get rid
of all of the junk" or something like that. The key to combat effectiveness is
"Muscle Memory Training". Which means you teach your body and mind a technique
or group of techniques that are instant, spontaineous techniques. One example
and then I'm out of here.
My friends dad owned a transmission shop in Queens, NY. This guy is 5'9 170
lbs, never trained in martial arts, but knew one technique that was burned
into his head: KICKS AND KNEES TO THE GROIN. Because it was a rough
neighborhood, he would have to defend himself, and every time, Groin kick and
then ground them and pound them (he was 57 at the time). My friend told me
this worked every time. The reason it did is.
1. The technique was built into MUSCLE MEMORY
2. Was Simple, didn't take a lot of practice.
3. It worked!
Have a great weekend!
Look for some new articles on my website that should be pretty cool.
* Chinese Indonesian Fighting Methods
* Chi Disease, is it real?
* The difference between Astral Projection & Remote Viewing
* Chi Density vs Chi Pressure
shado...@qnet.com
In article <19971025023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
You guys are missing one point. It is not the number of techniques but
the number of CONCEPTS within the techniques that matter. Parker used the
large number of techniques in his Kenpo system as a tool to teach
students in his system how to use the various CONCEPTS in many different
applications. If you would open your eyes and your minds you could see
that while learning Purple belt techniques you are already using CONCEPTS
learned in orange belt techniques but in different application as well as
learning additional new CONCEPTS, the same is true for blue,green,brown
and all the endings through 3rd black! If you can remember that the
techniques are not written in stone and are meant as a guide to
CONCEPTUAL fighting it will free you up to graft and adapt the CONCEPTS
to fit any situation that may present itself. (Spontaneous phase) By
limiting yourself to say 55 techniques, you are limiting yourself to the
exposure of the many different applications of those"redundant" concepts
as some of you are calling them. As a further point, you can successfully
train under the 24 technique per belt system and get the techniques off
spontaneously if the ideal phase of the attack as well as the technique
presents itself. However, more likely than not, the attack is not ideal
and you must enter into the what if and formulation phases, grafting and
adapting to fit the situation, starting off with the first couple of
moves of one technique and ending up with a totally different technique,
perhaps even one that you would not ordinarily think of fitting the
situation, but the repetitive drilling of the Concepts within our
techniques allows muscle memory to take over to the point that is sort of
like deja vu to your body as it recognizes that it has "been here
before". Think about it!
Eric Smith
Shadow Dragon Kenpo Karate
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
Dave Sheehy wrote:
> > They are essentially devoid of real time usefulness.
>
> This I don't agree with. While you will probably never use a complete
> technique in a real confrontation pieces of techniques will pop out here
> and there. This reminds me of an old story I heard about a student of
> Parker's who came to class one day very disgruntled
>
Five swords is a good example, what i was trying to say was just that they have
limited usefullness for just the reason you described.
> > From studing with some of the masters, and talking to many people on the
> > subject and simply haveing exposure to the arts in general i can say this,
> > No Gung-Fu master will tell you that the kata 'Tiger and Crane' (for
> > example) was ever meant to teach how to fight against different people
> > comming from different angles using specific attack/defense routiens,
> > what it WAS meant to do, as is all traditional Kata, is to pass down
> > information in a medium that will be remembered. The same is true of the
> > Kata and technique in Kenpo.
>
> While this may be true of your Kenpo kata it is most certainly NOT true of
> mine (Parker based).
I am also doing the Parker #5 Kata. But it is true as well as what you say next,
What i was attempting to say was that it wasen't meant to deal with 50 attackers,
you wouldn't whip long 5 off in a street situation, yes the principals are sound,
thatb is what i saiod the kata are preserving.
> As an extremely simple example one of the basic themes
> of Form 5 is flank attacks. No attack in Form 5 comes from the front. One
> of Parker's basic tenets in the formulation of his version of Kenpo was
> multiple attackers. Where else would you store this information but in the
> forms (hint: it's there)? If you think it's not there then you need to
> start asking some hard questions to your instructor. I have little idea of
> your rank level but this is advanced material (for the theory anyway) and
> perhaps you haven't reached that point yet (just speculating).
>
I know everything up to and including Long #6 if this gives you an idea :-) (I am
ranked that high as well)> The more> Saying that 50 techniques are great is just
ignorant,(i am not saying this
> > is what you have said) but the simple fact remains,
>
> Here we disagree (mostly) and I suspect we always will.
>
> Dave Sheehy
I enjoy your comments Dave.
-Mike MacKinnon-Peckham
Dave Sheehy
Al wrote:
> Not only do I teach Kenpo, but Silat, Chinese Boxing and Kung Fu, so I have a
> lot more than 55 techniques at my disposal. My view on Kenpo is that in a real
> situation you will use about 10% of your art and the rest will be useless,
> unless of course your fighting with it every day.
> The other thing is that a lot of time kenpo does not translate from the
> techniques to the sparring situation. How many techniques do you use when you
> spar? How many does a boxer use when they fight?
IME of trying to use kenpo techniques in sparring I've found:
1. I have to pull too much stuff that's impossible to control (e.g. elbows).
That leaves holes you have to fill or else it gives your opponent too
much time to react.
2. The techniques rely on the effect of the previous hit to kazushi (off
balance) and set up the next hit. Since you can't really hit your
sparring partner hard enough to cause that reaction the techniques
don't flow well.
So as far as using techniques in sparring it will be rare (IME) to get off
more than the 1st beat or maybe 2 of any given technique before everything
goes south and it turns into a melee.
Dave Sheehy
sgpau...@gmail.com
> I have been following the thread going on here about the IKCA and how some feel
> that because they only have 55 techniques that the system is incomplete. Well
> the fact is that the 55 techniques are a base to work with, the idea is to
> borrow and combine techniques.
>
> I have been training with the IKCA since 1992 and have also trained with others
> from Parker, Tracy, Tatum, Fowler etc. I have found the IKCA to be a very
> responsible curriculum that is feasible.
>
> I mean come on guys, 24 techniques per belt? This is a total joke. Nobody can
> learn and KNOW all of these hundred techniques. When I say know, I mean like
> the back of your hand. Even 55 techniques are tough to get to know
> spontaneously.
>
> it more complete in my opinion. If you ask anyone that is anyone in Kenpo
> about Chuck Sullivan or Vic LeRoux, you will get nothing but good things about
> them.
>
> enhanced performance, so look for it within the next couple of weeks.
>
When it comes down to it, I love both methods and find them equally effective. While I teach the curriculum of the IKKA, the IKCA master form is part of my daily practice. Even with the expanded technique base of both systems blended in my practice, it is the spontaneity drills and blending of technique elements across the two have given me great insight into the higher essence of Kenpo. I look at the IKKA and IKCA methods as two different vehicles to the same destinations. Some prefer one while other's prefer the other. Some like me tend to like both. As long as we reach the same destination, the vehicle chosen is simply personal preference.
Just my 2-cents.