Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analysis of Kempo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Simonthesong
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simonthesong
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by GoldenJonas
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Satori
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperGuido
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Simonthesong
    Hmm... I don't agree. There have been moves in my forms where I think to myself, "WTF is this rubbish? This isn't conditioning, this isn't applicable, this is dancing!" There have also been moves where I immediatly see a number of applications. There have even been combinations where I think, "Heeeeey! I can see exactly why that would work."
    Well after thinking for a moment, I will concede and admit that issuing a blanket statement on kata motions being unapplicable isn't true. Though still, alot of instructors try to really read into every motion and find an application, and then argue that doing the kata in the air is actually somehow building your ability to do the technique held within.

    I once did a demonstration to prove a point to my students that this line of thinking was flawed. I demonstrated my "cereal eating form" where I scooped my hand holding an imaginary spoon into an imaginary bowl. Then ate the imaginary cereal, put down the spoon and wiped my chin with an imaginary napkin. I then did all the motions shown live on an uke and applied a wrist lock on him off of a collar choke attack. I then proceeded to ask them if they would believe me that if I told them that eating their bowl of cereal every morning was preparing them to apply that wristlock off of a real attack. :ninjafigh

    Hammers have evolved from rocks tied to sticks.
    Don't question me when I'm making up history! Cavemen had lots of nails to hit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simonthesong
    replied
    Originally posted by KempoFist
    NONE of the applications I've seen of such katas hold water in reality during a real fight, so on a whole they should be scrapped.
    Hmm... I don't agree. There have been moves in my forms where I think to myself, "WTF is this rubbish? This isn't conditioning, this isn't applicable, this is dancing!" There have also been moves where I immediatly see a number of applications. There have even been combinations where I think, "Heeeeey! I can see exactly why that would work."

    The forms I know that have a lot of jumping and arm-flapping are not worth ever practising for something other than an aeroic workout. I abandon them happily in favour of jogging. The forms I know that have tight, controlled, and self-evidently applicable techniques, I practise in conjuction with drilling. Are the forms more of a time waster? Well, at my low level I see this application obviously, so what's to say I won't find something else later on?

    If I can, I'd do both. If I have to choose, then I pick the good techniques and drill them.

    Originally posted by KempoFist
    Kata as a tool is as useful today as a rock tied to a stick is useful today compared to a hammer.
    Hammers have evolved from rocks tied to sticks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Simonthesong
    I think it's worthwhile to consider a combination of attacks that occur in a form as a valid sequence. I've heard that forms are created around real historical fights or matches. If this isn't a complete crock, then it means someone with much more ability than I has seen merit in stringing techniques together in this particular way. My main concern would be being unable to seperate the techniques in application, or be versatile in their use.
    Unfortunately this is an often touted cop-out line for shoddy BS artists. It's true that many forms were created by fighters who liked what they saw at another school and without the aid of recording devices devised a way to catalog the techniques via kata. But today, especially in the the western world and especially in Kempo, this is not the case. Most forms are watered down traditional forms from other styles, that have been changed and reworked dozens of times to make the motions "more practical" in the eyes of the current master. In my school, I've seen debates rage on about the original way a kata was taught, and the possible applications that could be found within on whether you have your hand open or closed, or if your stance is wide or short, but in the end NONE of the applications I've seen of such katas hold water in reality during a real fight, so on a whole they should be scrapped.

    Kata as a tool is as useful today as a rock tied to a stick is useful today compared to a hammer.

    I dislike a drill where I can only defend-counter or attack-get countered. As the "defender" I should still be able to initiate an attack if my "attacker" leaves an opening. Likewise, if I am the attacker, I should have to learn not to create that opening. Even though I am working on a specific skill, ditto my opponent, I think it is vital that I be given the freedom to switch roles as the situation demands.
    Well I see your point, which I was I said, to also run those drills, not exclusively. An example of such a drill is I'd have a partner just move around throwing jabs at me when he felt like it, and I would parry - slip - and counterstrike with a level change body shot. Working that over and over sets me up for more lengthy striking combos, or into setups for a takedown. Of course after working that drill, a good counter for the attacker should be shown, and then having an isolation drill combining offense and defense between the two partners can be done. (then free-form sparring).

    It's all about building the skills necessary in the most efficient manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simonthesong
    replied
    I think it's worthwhile to consider a combination of attacks that occur in a form as a valid sequence. I've heard that forms are created around real historical fights or matches. If this isn't a complete crock, then it means someone with much more ability than I has seen merit in stringing techniques together in this particular way. My main concern would be being unable to seperate the techniques in application, or be versatile in their use.

    I dislike a drill where I can only defend-counter or attack-get countered. As the "defender" I should still be able to initiate an attack if my "attacker" leaves an opening. Likewise, if I am the attacker, I should have to learn not to create that opening. Even though I am working on a specific skill, ditto my opponent, I think it is vital that I be given the freedom to switch roles as the situation demands.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoldenJonas
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by patfromlogan
    Well, to play the devil's advocate, I think that practicing pre-set drills does install a memory response that does work sometimes in sd. Like the nurse I read about in CA who took a two week sd class. Perv grabbed her from behind and she did the old side step/back elbow and cracked his sternum. I know of two incidents when Danzan Ryu JJ and AK sd drills worked for sd. In both cases the ma was not successful until they got the other guy into their routine - off balanced 'em or got them trapped, and then in the JJ case, choked 'em, and in the AK case he followed through with the Dance of Death or Monkey Steals Peaches or whatever he called the follow through strike combo (he said he felt kind of sorry later). Similarly, my favorite tech against front choke is to pin their wrists to my chest with my hands grasped together and step back. As he falls toward me I drive my hands into his face. I don't know how to practice that type of sd technique in a principle based or "live" type training.

    That asside, what Kajukenbo under Prof. Clarence Emperado teaches is improvisational response based on principles. Much more like what your last paragraph might entail.
    Yeah, that is fine, and drilling such techniques can really instill a good habit for certain scenarios, but when the technique is a) flawed or b) too long and accounting for too many variables to play out in a specific sequence, then practicing them becomes inefficient and at worst building bad habits.

    Leave a comment:


  • patfromlogan
    replied
    Originally posted by KempoFist
    Sounds like you are headed in the right direction with your training, but I feel the need to comment here, where you say advice on how to use them in succession is where I feel alot of schools, regardless of style fail with kata. The thing is, is as I said in response to the Sparrow with the "something open, something close" line, alot of instructors will just piece togethor the motions without regard for reality through pressure testing. They'll put togethor a smaller sequence than the kata itself made up of the katas parts, thats just nearly as impractical due to the fact that it not only is a predetermined response to an opponent, but also accounts for the opponents reaction. Such soothsaying in a fight is quite unrealistic.

    I have no real problem with techniques or sequences to give students an idea of what's possible, but when emphasis on that over free-sparring is placed, then that is where I feel the problem lies.
    Hmmm, if I'd read this before the above post.... :happy8:

    Leave a comment:


  • patfromlogan
    replied
    Originally posted by KempoFist
    Was thinking about this today, and I figured I'd bring my own thread back from the dead to add this on here...

    The main issue seems to be the issue of trying to address something chaotic and stressful with techniques that are choreographed and prescribed for a specific set of actions and reactions.

    Instead of breaking down a fight into its basic components (3 ranges, types of attacks etc...) most Kempo schools seem more intent on utilizing more of an action - reaction type of training, with heavy emphasis being on the recieving end of an attack and counter-attacking. A class may run along the lines of the instructor saying something like, "ok someone attacks you in this way, here's what you do..." as opposed to a combat sport instructor who would say, "ok someone is at this range, you want to do this to keep your distance, and then here's how you close the distance to get a clinch etc..." It's simply one addressing combat as one-sided battles, and one addressing the reality of a fight being chaotic, and trying to give you all the tools necessary to control the situation and tip the odds in your favor of coming out on top.

    For example a Kempo technique may go, "attacker throws a right handed punch towards your face. You block the punch, then step into his center and thrust punch him in the ribs. Then you chop the neck. Then you palm the face. Then you turn 90 degrees to your right and sidekick the knee." Another technique would deal with a different kind of attack.

    Focusing on these pre-set drills is quite the epitomy of "missing the forest in the trees" and no matter how many times you practice them -even REALLY hard with an uke- won't make you any more prepared to deal with a real confrontation.

    I would feel a better way to address this situation would be to break it down into blocking/covering drills. And then work isolation drills to teach how to open up and expose the body to execute the rest of the barrage, or part of which against a live opponent. Stepping inside of a boxers stance after blocking is asking for nothing less than a hook punch to the head -even if you caught a clean strike to the face-, and not addressing that is just poor instruction.

    Well, to play the devil's advocate, I think that practicing pre-set drills does install a memory response that does work sometimes in sd. Like the nurse I read about in CA who took a two week sd class. Perv grabbed her from behind and she did the old side step/back elbow and cracked his sternum. I know of two incidents when Danzan Ryu JJ and AK sd drills worked for sd. In both cases the ma was not successful until they got the other guy into their routine - off balanced 'em or got them trapped, and then in the JJ case, choked 'em, and in the AK case he followed through with the Dance of Death or Monkey Steals Peaches or whatever he called the follow through strike combo (he said he felt kind of sorry later). Similarly, my favorite tech against front choke is to pin their wrists to my chest with my hands grasped together and step back. As he falls toward me I drive my hands into his face. I don't know how to practice that type of sd technique in a principle based or "live" type training.

    That asside, what Kajukenbo under Prof. Clarence Emperado teaches is improvisational response based on principles. Much more like what your last paragraph might entail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Simonthesong
    Also, one way I have drilled is to be assigned one or two attacks and one or two defences. I then am free to attack my partner all I want, and he me, so long as I use only these techniques. This way we simulate aliveness (correct usage of term?).
    Reads to me as isolation sparring, so yes that is definately part of an "alive" training session. I would also recommend working drills where your opponent throws a limited number of attacks (in motion), and you just work defenses and counters, and vice versa. Building muscle memory and a strong base of skills is what is key.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ke?poFist
    replied
    Originally posted by Simonthesong
    On forms/kata/whatever: most TCM have a huge number of techniques. A form is a way of cataloguing these techniques so that they may be remembered easily, as well as provide "advice" on how to use them in succession. However, a practioner should be able to apply each of those techniques individually in a number of situations outside of how the form "advises". We can sometimes forget that the techniques themselves are the basis of the system, not the forms we find them in.
    Sounds like you are headed in the right direction with your training, but I feel the need to comment here, where you say advice on how to use them in succession is where I feel alot of schools, regardless of style fail with kata. The thing is, is as I said in response to the Sparrow with the "something open, something close" line, alot of instructors will just piece togethor the motions without regard for reality through pressure testing. They'll put togethor a smaller sequence than the kata itself made up of the katas parts, thats just nearly as impractical due to the fact that it not only is a predetermined response to an opponent, but also accounts for the opponents reaction. Such soothsaying in a fight is quite unrealistic.

    I have no real problem with techniques or sequences to give students an idea of what's possible, but when emphasis on that over free-sparring is placed, then that is where I feel the problem lies.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X