I'm seriously not trying to be an ass about this, but I don't find that to be a mark in his favor.

I'm seriously not trying to be an ass about this, but I don't find that to be a mark in his favor.

It is once you consider that he is known for developing "street kung fu," and being a foward-thinking martial artist. That, and he was initially famous as a Kaju/Kung Fu guy back in the 70s who won the old-school karate tournaments.

Isn't Dacascos the one who went to the Shaolin temple for a while? I seem to recall reading about him in an MA mag...

You are thinking of Steve Demasco. And I think you owe Dacascos an apology for mixing him up with someone like Demasco, lol

Yeah, my googling for One Hop Coo-in Do turned up 515 responses, almost all about hip-hop.

Isn't Dacascos the one who went to the Shaolin temple for a while? I seem to recall reading about him in an MA mag...

You should be shot for that...

Here's Dacascos' son

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M253ibD1u4A

Capoeira is the new Ke?po?

I got a chance to finally visit the local Kajukenbo school. Instructor was a GREAT guy who I enjoyed talking to at length and all of the students were very friendly. The training was interesting but I guess I would label it as somewhat "static". It reminded me a bit of TKD (no offense!) in that there were pre-aranged self defense scenarios with willing attackers and defenders (mostly done at moderate speeds). Keep in mind that the class I observed was all black belts with the exception of one brown belt.

There was some practice of forms using weapons (tonfa, bo staff, and broad sword) as well as empty hand forms. The instructor explained to me that the weapons stuff wasn't part of the Kajukenbo curriculum but he taught it as sort of an "extra" thing to his students in an effort to keep things interesting.

All in all, in reminded me of a MUCH improved version of what I've seen (or experienced) in many TKD and Karate schools. However the "methods" (static self defense scenarios at moderate speeds) seems to be very much the same. I know that some may take this statement as ian nsult but it's certainly not meant that way. I would take this Kajukenbo class over most of the TKD and Karate classes I've seen any day of the week. However, if one is looking for a "different" training paradigm, then this may not be the place....

Nupe357

P.S. This definetely didn't seem like the legendary Kajukenbo training that I've heard so much about...The kind where you have to wear a cup and a mouthguard to every class!!

You are thinking of Steve Demasco. And I think you owe Dacascos an apology for mixing him up with someone like Demasco, lol
You're right, you're right. I apologize. Sorry, everyone.

I got a chance to finally visit the local Kajukenbo school. Instructor was a GREAT guy who I enjoyed talking to at length and all of the students were very friendly. The training was interesting but I guess I would label it as somewhat "static". It reminded me a bit of TKD (no offense!) in that there were pre-aranged self defense scenarios with willing attackers and defenders (mostly done at moderate speeds). Keep in mind that the class I observed was all black belts with the exception of one brown belt.

There was some practice of forms using weapons (tonfa, bo staff, and broad sword) as well as empty hand forms. The instructor explained to me that the weapons stuff wasn't part of the Kajukenbo curriculum but he taught it as sort of an "extra" thing to his students in an effort to keep things interesting.

All in all, in reminded me of a MUCH improved version of what I've seen (or experienced) in many TKD and Karate schools. However the "methods" (static self defense scenarios at moderate speeds) seems to be very much the same. I know that some may take this statement as ian nsult but it's certainly not meant that way. I would take this Kajukenbo class over most of the TKD and Karate classes I've seen any day of the week. However, if one is looking for a "different" training paradigm, then this may not be the place....

Nupe357

P.S. This definetely didn't seem like the legendary Kajukenbo training that I've heard so much about...The kind where you have to wear a cup and a mouthguard to every class!!

It's compliant drilling. Don't be afraid to call it what it is. This in itself is not damning of a school, but depending on how they choose to spar -abandon techniques drilled and just point spar, or actually apply what they are learning in isolation sparring and full range sparring- is what makes or breaks a school in my eyes. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

I can tell you from a Kaju seminar I attended, I got hit....a lot....very hard. And I didn't get the worst of it. I saw one of our higher dans get demonstrated on by Professor Powell (8th or 9th in Kaju I believe) and I just cringed at the sight of what I was witnessing....good thing he wore a cup

Because Kaju is such a big organization there is definitely some disparity among instruction, but a large majority of the schools are "cup and mouthpieces" as you were hoping to encounter, at least in my experience. Because of WHKD's smaller size, we are bit more unified in this regard, and always have alive training. We do our share of static drills, to teach the basics and build muscle memory, but at technique isn't effective until you can reliably use it against a resisting opponent.

I've been in Kajukenbo for most of my life and I still don't know that much about what the other branches do. Hell, I don't even know what my own method does sometimes.

WHKD is supposed to be more complex in movement and character than Hard Style correct? When you try it against a fully resisting opponent, how "complex" is the encounter? It has been my experience that the more complex the technique, the harder it is to successfully connect. This is universal in just about every style. Judo in the olympics, BJJ, boxing, kickboxing have all narrowed down their execution to the basics and have done well. Maybe you can shed some light on this for me.

I wouldn't say more complex, but rather that it flows more smoothly and incorporates as many strikes as possible into a given movement (ie why just punch when you can snap that elbow in if you got through their guard). Against fully resisting people, we tend to rip and and then never let up. The combination of the flow and multitude of strikes makes it very hard to defend against, and quite effective in practice.

I've been in Kajukenbo for most of my life and I still don't know that much about what the other branches do. Hell, I don't even know what my own method does sometimes.

WHKD is supposed to be more complex in movement and character than Hard Style correct? When you try it against a fully resisting opponent, how "complex" is the encounter? It has been my experience that the more complex the technique, the harder it is to successfully connect. This is universal in just about every style. Judo in the olympics, BJJ, boxing, kickboxing have all narrowed down their execution to the basics and have done well. Maybe you can shed some light on this for me.

You're just jealous of my of transition from inverted guard to upside down triangle to gogoplata. Works every time :)

I wouldn't say more complex, but rather that it flows more smoothly and incorporates as many strikes as possible into a given movement (ie why just punch when you can snap that elbow in if you got through their guard). Against fully resisting people, we tend to rip and and then never let up. The combination of the flow and multitude of strikes makes it very hard to defend against, and quite effective in practice.

I think you make your point and his at the same time. Sure in drilling, it looks nice to block, step through, simulate hyperextending the elbow, low punching the groin, into a whipping hammer strike to the head as it comes down, but when it comes down to it in fighting, all of that goes out the window unless the guy miraculously KO's himself standing halfway through the fight. What more than likely happens is you begin to unload on the guy (like you said), not hitting very specific points because he is moving, and if he ends up being able to throw hands just as well if not better than you, then you end up clinching and maybe falling to the ground.

This is why, when I was teaching I moved further away from pre-choreographed techniques, using only the ones I had to teach as guidelines for "ideas" on what you can do in certain situations, but rather focusing on simpler, shorter drills that more readily apply to a fighting scenario.

I think you make your point and his at the same time. Sure in drilling, it looks nice to block, step through, simulate hyperextending the elbow, low punching the groin, into a whipping hammer strike to the head as it comes down, but when it comes down to it in fighting, all of that goes out the window unless the guy miraculously KO's himself standing halfway through the fight. What more than likely happens is you begin to unload on the guy (like you said), not hitting very specific points because he is moving, and if he ends up being able to throw hands just as well if not better than you, then you end up clinching and maybe falling to the ground.

This is why, when I was teaching I moved further away from pre-choreographed techniques, using only the ones I had to teach as guidelines for "ideas" on what you can do in certain situations, but rather focusing on simpler, shorter drills that more readily apply to a fighting scenario.

A couple of points:

1) we never pre-choreograph our flowing strikes. The drills we do are short, and designed to teach one how to flow or mix things up, but are rarely used as is during full resistance. Once in a while you get luckily and fully excute a specific technique, but in general they are adapted on the fly during alive training.

We also never do: "block, step through, simulate hyperextending the elbow, low punching the groin, into a whipping hammer strike to the head as it comes down." That is way to kenpo-like and not like how we move. Rather, an example of what I mean is that if I hit you in the face, I will rake your eyes on the retreat of my hand, or use the retreating arm to strike something else. We use flow to become more efficient in our moves, by capitalizing on the opportunities presented to us during an alive situation (sparring or otherwise). As I said, it's not more complicated, it's more flowed/efficient.

It seems to me,Won Hop Kuen Do was much more "Northern Siu Lum" influenced than the other Ke?po systems. It certainly looked cooler. Dacascos studied with Paul Eng and Wong Jack Man, according to Bill Owens. He said he went to Wong to "clean his stuff up".

It seems to me,Won Hop Kuen Do was much more "Northern Siu Lum" influenced than the other Ke?po systems. It certainly looked cooler. Dacascos studied with Paul Eng and Wong Jack Man, according to Bill Owens. He said he went to Wong to "clean his stuff up".


Yes he did, and it has a lot of Northern influence from that. However, he also studied with Bak Sam Kong (and he studied some Wing Chun as well), and so the hand movements in practice tend to be a bit more Southern (tight and compact), although we do practice more Northern forms than Southern forms.