Let me play devil's advocate here...
I no longer study Kempo, and I'm not sure if I'll go back to it even if my schedule opens up. However, I hold many Kempo instructors in very high regard...so I'm stuck on this issue.
---
The essential issue here seems to be the projected implausibility of pre-set techniques designed in response to an attack. The fluid nature of combat dictates that having a solid "Plan" for any type of attack is wishful thinking at best...so the overall opinion on this thread is that Kempo, being primarily composed of these "Pre Set Responses", has the wrong approach to combat.
The model used in comparison is the "Boxing/Kickboxing" model, which tends to focus on basics and address threats in a more theoretical yet practical manner.
i.e. Instead of "When he punches, parry/kick/gouge/poke/explode", something like "When he punches, close the distance and cut his power while countering," is preferred.
Now...my point of contention to which I'll play devil's advocate is the concept of training small, specific, high percentage responses to common attacks.
Are we still falling into the "Kempo Trap" if we practice "He throws a jab, I slip in and counter with a right to the body and a left hook before clinching and throwing knees,"?
What about "He throws a low roundhouse, I leg check while simultaneously countering with a right cross to the face, closing the distance for a stepping round knee to the midsection,"?
My glorious amount of Muay Thai training (roughly 3 months) had me learning and doing dozens of combos like this. My even more extravagant boxing training (roughly 4 months) included even MORE complicated combos.
Therefore, the concept of training high percentage responses to high percentage attacks is an integral part of combat sports...so what makes this so effective while the "Kempo Techniques" fall into the other category?
Is it the length of the technique?
Is it the manner in which it is practiced?
Is it the composition of low percentage moves?
Is it the focus on a low percentage attack?
I no longer study Kempo, and I'm not sure if I'll go back to it even if my schedule opens up. However, I hold many Kempo instructors in very high regard...so I'm stuck on this issue.
---
The essential issue here seems to be the projected implausibility of pre-set techniques designed in response to an attack. The fluid nature of combat dictates that having a solid "Plan" for any type of attack is wishful thinking at best...so the overall opinion on this thread is that Kempo, being primarily composed of these "Pre Set Responses", has the wrong approach to combat.
The model used in comparison is the "Boxing/Kickboxing" model, which tends to focus on basics and address threats in a more theoretical yet practical manner.
i.e. Instead of "When he punches, parry/kick/gouge/poke/explode", something like "When he punches, close the distance and cut his power while countering," is preferred.
Now...my point of contention to which I'll play devil's advocate is the concept of training small, specific, high percentage responses to common attacks.
Are we still falling into the "Kempo Trap" if we practice "He throws a jab, I slip in and counter with a right to the body and a left hook before clinching and throwing knees,"?
What about "He throws a low roundhouse, I leg check while simultaneously countering with a right cross to the face, closing the distance for a stepping round knee to the midsection,"?
My glorious amount of Muay Thai training (roughly 3 months) had me learning and doing dozens of combos like this. My even more extravagant boxing training (roughly 4 months) included even MORE complicated combos.
Therefore, the concept of training high percentage responses to high percentage attacks is an integral part of combat sports...so what makes this so effective while the "Kempo Techniques" fall into the other category?
Is it the length of the technique?
Is it the manner in which it is practiced?
Is it the composition of low percentage moves?
Is it the focus on a low percentage attack?
Comment