Analysis of Kempo

[SuperGuido]

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?

[Ke?poFist]

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'm really glad this is being discussed, because it's been a point of contention between myself and other Kempo instructors for a number of years now, ironically starting with me on the other side of the argument.

The general rule of thumb is simplicity trumps complexity. It is easier to land a punch to the face than a leopard strike to the throat. It is easier to secure an overhook than it is to apply finger pressure to muscle groups in the neck. It is easier to utilize a one-two punch combo than it is to execute a 6 step application that if done properly could perhaps do more damage.

They thing that makes the difference between Kempo sequences and say MT combos to stick with your comparison, is as you said, percentages. Boxing and MT combos utilize striking that a) keeps you protected whether they land or not and b) only go into effect if the first strike lands achieving its ideal goal.

For example a basic MT combo could be a jab-cross-cut kick-rear hook
The goal here would be to set up with the one-two combo to obscure the cut kick which would then lower the opponents guard giving the opening for the hook to the jaw. Now is this more or less effective than typical Kempo combos? Well it depends which technique or combo, and it depends on certain factors...

1) Will this technique not achieve any desirable goals if it is not pulled off in completion?

2) Will I be at a disadvantage or vulnerable if it is not pulled off?

3) How well does this combo mix with other combos, that I might work into if my opponent reacts in an unexpected or undesirable fashion?

I personally feel alot of what I've seen of various styles of Ken/mpo doesn't cut the cake in regards to these questions, though as I said in my original article, I feel the concepts and theories to combat hold water and that if reworked in a less "dead" fashion alot of the stuff could be really useful and viable.

Boxers, kickboxers and other such sport strikers know they're combos work and are efficient, because if they weren't then they would lose their matches. Most non-sport martial artists cannot say the same about their techniques and combos. Applying the lessons learned from the ring, and pressure testing and working concepts from the art in a similar fashion is what is necessary to discover what is practical, and what isn't so much. I found out the hard way most of my blue belt material gets me eaten alive by decent inside striking boxers. But with that knowledge I've discovered ways to utilize boxing style defense to find openings to apply those same techniques.

[Ke?poFist]

FYI - Not to :hijackp: your thread but there is some Ke_po talk going on over at .....
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46059
in case you want to chime in.

There's friggin Kempo talk going on everywhere! I can't keep up on it all. Misinformation and teh d34dliness abound the forums!

Here's my latest challenge.... "Kenpo in MMA" http://www.martialartsplanet.com/for...748#post970748

[Simonthesong]

We also have a similiar form to your "Cerial Eating Kata". Chi Cai Quan utalises the ancient and devastating power of the tofu-fist to absorb an opponent's qi and redirect it with Mapo-infused phoenix eyes to the nerve-groups.

As for combos, I think TCM has ridiculously complicated teqchniques. A complicated combo of simple techniques is much more reliable than a simple combo of complicated techniques, because the individual components are more easily applied. Once we get to complicated combos of complicated techniques, destination=FUBAR.

Given that TCM were designed to be practised exponentially more often than how is is practised today, it's not surprising that we are expected to effectively use complicated techniques. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with pragmatism--we can't spare the time to make the stuff work. That MMAist with the simple and effective combo can in theory be unfailingly and devastingly countered by [monkey steals the peach] but only if we practise is ten thousand times or something.

Ever heard the story of the Taijiquan master who owns a buch of bandits with only one technique, a technique that may be a block, a lock, a strike, a punch, etc? How the hell do we do it without x years of continual study? We're better off actually getting a job and hitting a punching bag in our spare time.

Am I now arguing with myself?

[Ke?poFist]

A complicated combo of simple techniques is much more reliable than a simple combo of complicated techniques, because the individual components are more easily applied. Once we get to complicated combos of complicated techniques, destination=FUBAR.

You just made my head hurt....stop that

Am I now arguing with myself?

Yes. Let me know how the argument turns out.