This is an article that is intended to help one truly understand the general concepts, ideas, and value of Kempo martial arts in its entirety. Kempo as per this piece describes the branches of martial arts schools of Hawaiian lineage through the styles started by Professor K.S. Chow and James Mitose. This is not a sure-fire critique of every one of these schools as I have not visited them all and cannot accurately comment on their training methods, but rather an overall description of what underlying theories and concepts can be found in most. I have split this article up into three parts; General Kempo theory and technique, flaws in the conventional wisdom of the average Kempoist, and how myself as well as the other instructors at my dojo have worked to rectify and overcome the flaws of what I'll describe as "Classical" Kempo (I will not use the term "traditional" for reasons I will later address). If you are a Kempo practitioner and open-minded about your training then this article is for you, if you are a Kempo practitioner and NOT open-minded then this article is definately for you! Anyway, I hope this helps put things into better perspective for anyone who is interested. I. General Kempo Theory & Technique 1) What is Kempo? Kempo quite simply translates into the words "fist law" and comes as a Japanese translation of the Chinese words "Ch'uan Fa. Most forms of Kempo that I am describing are derived from some form of Kajukenbo lineage, as per Sijo Adriano Emperado, and have since branched off from there. Emperado originally trained in and taught Kempo under William Chow, but left him to train with other martial artists in the area, which eventually brought about the creation of Kajukenbo. Kajukenbo is formed of 5 different traditional Japanese and Chinese martial arts; KArate, JUjitsu, JUdo, KENpo, and Chinese BOxing (aka Kung Fu). Most Kempo schools that have branched from this base also have come to incorporate basic pinans from prominent Japanese styles such as Shotokan. With this kind of mix of heritage, it's no wonder that Kempo has so many varying opinions and theories on how to fight. Which brings me to my next section... 2) Kempo Theory Kempo Karate has many martial theories that it has quite simply taken from many other prominent arts that came before it. This in itself is the greatest underlying theory that Kempo posesses; taking the best from other styles and becoming a more well rounded and effective eclectic martial art. With this in mind we will now look at the concepts that come to the forefront of Kempo training, and address the typical rhetoric that you will hear no matter which branch of Kempo you train in. a) "Flurrying" punches: This is often the thing that immediately comes to mind when one hears the word "Kempo." The idea is to not just to try and land one solid punch as more traditional Japanese systems advocate, but rather to overcome and overwhelm your opponent with a barrage of strikes. b) Simultaneous striking: Kempo practitioners are notorious for promoting striking with multiple limbs simultaneously to decrease their opponent's chances of defending. c) Overkill: Many techniques involve what instructors would call "overkill" in the sense that not only will the Kempo fighter block and counterstrike to gain control, but rather they will continue to strike and break their opponent until there is little chance for them to continue to fight. Detractors of the ideology claim that such a concept is brutal and unnecessary because it involves further harming an already beaten opponent. d) Atemi strikes: Kempoists often cite their use of "atemi" strikes, also known as striking to vital points of the body. As the saying goes, "take a hard part of your body and strike to a soft part of theirs." Alongside this idea came with it a broad array of unique strikes each intended for a very specific purpose. Everything from the front-two knuckle punch ala traditional karate, to the mantis grab of numerous Kung Fu styles can be found in Kempo. If you were to ask me, I think if there's a way you can think of to position your hand to hit someone, you can be sure it's in Kempo! e) Circular/Linear motion: This approach to combat runs along the lines of, "against a linear attack, use a circular motion, and against a circular motion, use a linear attack." If you ask me, people who preach this saw Jet Li's THE ONE a few too many times, but nonetheless it's still another point you will often hear made in your average Kempo class. f) Sequence fighting: This is from what I have seen and heard to be most prevalent in American Kenpo schools, but it can be said for most others as well if you ask me. The idea here is to practice numerous drawn out sequences of techniques that can later be made interchangeable to help the Kempoist adapt to his opponents movements. Which brings me to... g) Adaptation: One thing that you will hear from nearly any Kempo practitioner is that adaptation is key. Every fight calls for a different approach, and staying stuck in one mindset is only going to lead to your defeat. II. Percieved flaws in conventional wisdom of the average Kempoist 1) Ideology over Reality: The greatest flaw in my personal opinion in most classically training Kempo schools is the reliance on pre-choreographed techniques to train the body to react. Compliant drilling off of lunging front-two-knuckle punches only gets you so far as the initial stage of training where you understand the basic mechanics of a technique. Resistance must be added as a vital part of training or the student never grows. When resistance is added, it becomes astonishingly clear that the techniques were not based off of a real opponent or attackers reactions, but rather based off of an ideology over what one might "expect" to happen. 2) Practicality of sequence training: As said above, sequence fighting is the use of pre-choreographed techniques that "flow" into each other to help you adapt to the situation at hand. The problem with this is a combination of many techniques not being practical when put into a live situation (as taught), as well as fights being more chaotic than any pre-arranged technique could probably prepare you for. Watch any sport fight, or any street fight and you will never see anyone moving through the graceful stances of a technique or kata. More than likely it will be alot of jabbing, haymakering, and hugging till someone falls on the ground which then brings us to the ground and pound. Learning how to fight and defend from these situations is key for anyone attempting to learn self defense. 3) 0 ground-fighting: Unless your school has just begun cross-training and making additions to their curriculum, Kempo contains no legitimate ground-fighting whatsoever. This is not surprising considering before the first few UFC's, not many martial arts schools, nor the general public (or even sports kickboxing schools) considered grappling or ground-fighting something worth knowing. The respect it has since gained proves it is nothing short of a requirement for self defense in this day and age. 4) Over-intellectualization of combat: After reading the first part of this article, you must be saying to yourself, "WOW, these Kempo guys sure do think alot about fighting." And if you did say that, you are 100% right. The problem being they think quite a bit about it, but never seem willing to put their theories to the test and will instead engage you in a game of mental sparring, which brings us back to the foundation of problem #1. 5) Bodhidharma taught Kempo: Just to set the record straight...NO HE DIDN'T! He was just a monk from India that taught the Shaolin monks breathing exercises and brought with him a branch of the Buddhist religion. All the legends about him being a martial arts master and being able to burn holes in walls and all that is just that....Legend! Even if he did teach some form of martial art, it certainly wouldn't look like anything a current Kempoist would be practicing. Sorry...just a pet peeve of mine. 6) Lack of body movement: 90% of Kempo techniques are designed to help counter the initial strike of an assault (note* assault, NOT fight...there's a difference) and with that idea of finishing the fight that early comes with it the idea that you don't need to move. The majority of techniques employ the concept of hip movement to generate power while you block/parry/slap the attack away while simultaneously counter-striking and dominating your opponent. This works great if the fight never gets out of the 2nd stage of combat, but more than likely it will and then something more substantial is needed. This brings me to point 7... 7) Rejection of proven training methods: Many Kempoists reject proven training and fighting methods that work well for sports fighters because, they don't train for that..."we train to save our life on the street." The problem with this mentality is that no proper foundation is ever set. I believe Luis Gutierrez said it better than I ever could... Without proper reflexes/muscle memory and expereince that can be gained only from rolling/sparring all the technique in the world becomes useless, and all the foul/dirty tactics in the world won't save you from even a slightly experienced fighter. III. Solutions to the problems From here I will now take every point I made in the last section, and describe how myself as well as the other instructors at our dojo have worked to ensure that our students gain a more well rounded as well as realistic training experience that better prepares them for any encounter that they may endure. 1&2) Ideology over Reality: Fortunately for me I never fully encountered the concept of techniques not working, simply because I was never really taught them as full techniques intended to be done verbatim. Instead my instructor taught them using the analogy that I still use today, as a "puzzle." Each technique, contains numerous pieces that can be used in various situations. For example, in green stripe belt Kempo 2 you would parry the punch with a palm, then following up into the nose driving him backwards. You then wrap the outstretched arm and elbow to the kidney. Then you bring your arm around and choke the neck with a ridgehand, flowing into another choke moving around the body, then finishing with a downwards chop dropping the opponent down. Now all togethor this move is completely ridiculous, and anyone who's ever been in a real fight or even a hard sparring match will tell you. But when broken down into pieces, the initiation, the slipping of the body into a choke, all can be worked into more practical drills. By breaking the technique down, you are now left with practical pieces that can be utilized in various scenarios, which can be drilled at varying belt/skill levels. 3) 0 Ground-fighting: This we have overcome by cross-training ourselves. I personally have taken up formal training in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, and we all train with others on our free time to get outside ideas, opinions, and training. Training only within your school leads to technique and ego in-breeding regardless of your style of martial arts. A healthy dose of seeing what's out there is always best. Although none of us are at nearly the skill level to have a formal grappling class or incorporate the techniques into the system, we still have our students get on the ground and work the positions to get to a more advantageous position. Working all ranges of combat is key, and if you can at least escape the bottom, and get the mount for a GnP then you're looking alot more prepared than alot of people out there. 4) Over-intellectualization of combat: Put up or Shut up 5) Bodhidharma: Already explained above... 6) Lack of body movement: This we've set out on fixing by incorporating alot of boxing/kickboxing theory and footwork. Keeping your hands up, protecting your chin are key. Using focus mitt work in conjunction with resistance drill training and free-form sparring seems to be the way to go. 7) Rejection of proven training methods: Well as you can imagine this is not an issue with us, but to elaborate the biggest change would be the embracement of "aliveness" in training. The definition of aliveness would be the incremental addition of resistance in training and drilling to simulate a real encounter in the fullest sense possible. It is not enough to practice static techniques on non-resisting partners. The rift between technique and sparring is too great, and if the techniques don't work in sparring then they won't work when your life depends on them. Taking the pieces of techniques that I mentioned earlier, teaching and drilling them in this basic sequence we have found to yield the best results in both ourselves, and our students: Teaching the basics: Students are taught the basic motions and striking points of the technique Compliant demonstration: Students are demonstrated the basics of the technique by the instructor on a compliant assistant to display more clearly the application Resistant demonstration: Students are demonstrated the technique now live, full speed on a resisting partner to display its true effectiveness, as well as to help the instructor point out any potential mistakes or problems that may arise. Compliant drilling: The students are now set off to practice the technique on each other compliantly to get the motions and feel of the technique down. Resistance drilling: Once they feel comfortable with the motions, resistance must be added to build a strong foundation in the nuances of the technique that cannot be fully elaborated without real application. The resistance must be increased as the comfort level of the student with the technique grows. The goal is to attain a level that simulates as close as possible the conditions one may experience in a real life scenario. Free-form sparring/Randori: Now that the student has attained proficiency in the technique, they may now attempt to utilize it against a fully resistant opponent in sparring that also has the same goal of nullifying their attempts, and coming out on top. Only after hours upon hours of this kind of pressure testing will a martial artist truly be able to utilize the concepts, theories, and techniques that they are learning. Without sufficient pressure testing the technique becomes useless and a waste of energy attempting to memorize and practice. IV. Concluding remarks Now in conclusion I will say that there is one thing to always keep in mind. When you follow a tradition, make sure that the tradition is one that is proven and good for you. In the case of Kempo, I feel that I am living up to its tradition to the fullest extent. To me, to allow complacency, and stagnation of technique and theory is not only doing a disservice to yourself, but also insulting the history and tradition of innovators and pioneers in the art of Kempo. This is why in my opening words I refused to use the word "tradition." Because to me tradition in Kempo IS change, IS progress, and IS what I am advocating. We must always be looking to adapt and change to keep up with the times. Believe it or not, empty-hand combat is still an evolving science, and attempting to utilize outdated knowledge in such an environment...well it's just bad science. Look at even secure environments such as MMA fighting with specific rulesets. Judging before those matches you'd think boxing to be the most superior fighting art. After UFC 1 and 2, you'd think grappling. Now, how many grappling submissions do you see in PRIDE fighting bouts compared to 10 years ago? If what works there can still evolve, how can one argue that what works in a street fight with no rules at all can't evolve?
Good article, and a well reasoned breakdown of your critiques of your own system. A similar process could and should be applied to other martial arts. And I'm not just saying that cuz I like you.
An interesting summary - what style do you refer to. I practice Kempo Jiu Jitsu, and I'd say that your summary applies about 75% to my style, and about 25% not (for example being largely Jiu Jitsu derived we have no particular problems with doing lots of groundwork). Also most British practiced Kempo styles have a strong emphasis on Dim Mak, which you don't mention. G
I'm referring to I suppose you could say most American Kenpo schools and any lineage from Fred Villari's and Nick Cerio's systems. That is all I have personally been exposed to, but judging from video evidence I have a feeling my article applies to a bit wider area than that, but as of now I cannot say. As to Dim Mak, I didn't elaborate, but I'd sum that up with the Atemi strikes. If you're referring to Dim Mak pressure point fighting with a strong emphasis on Chi, then let me tell you I've met my fair share of Kempo chi masters and I'd say that everything they ever taught falls under my "ideology over reality" section. Even if one of them did possess an inkling of ability to manipulate whatever mystical energy is within my body, they wouldn't be able to do it unless I was standing still and focusing really hard on feeling it. Cool parlor trick, bad self defense.
Dim Mak is the use of PPs and chi within a martial art, it is related to Atemi, but overlaps rather than includes. The equivalent Japanese term is I think Kyushu? As for "PP masters", I've trained under a few (Leon Jay, Warren Palmer, Ben Ledwick...) and agree that there are a few out there with little to teach in terms of fighting effectiveness (although not those three). The best of them are amongst the best martial artists I've ever met. The key, in my opinion, is the incorporation of these into already good technique - nobody will ever win a fight through dim-mak alone (unless they sneak up behind you). There are certainly party tricks in there (but most martial arts have those). To pick a simple example, deflecting a punch - something we all do. Incorporating PP use will attempt to take points in the arm at the same time, weakening it, causing pain, controlling the attacking arm and/or weakening the attacker - but if (and it happens with the best) you miss, it must still be a good block. I've never known a GOOD pp user who would rely purely upon PP techniques ever. G
Your assessment of proper use of pressure points is pretty much in line with how I teach the ones I know. Pretty much I view them as a bonus while striking. If I strike your arm to release your grip then great, but if I happen to strike the proper point where your hand will undoubtedly release and cause considerable pain then that's perfect! But trying to strike one specific spot in a moving adrenaline filled combat situation isn't something I'd recommend.
Wow, nice. Looks like you put a lot of work into this. My comments below. Wouldn't it be Kenpo spelled with an "n" instead of an "m"? It really doesn't matter, it depends on which school and lineage you are referring to. But Chow was kenpo, wasn't he? I don't believe the Pinan's developed in the Palama settlement in 1947-1949 are the same as the Pinan's in Shotokan Karate. This point right here almost kills your credibility completely. Gah... The Kung Fu influence is very important from founder Clarence Chang - Chinese Boxing (Sil Lum Pai), but BO also refers to American Boxing which is in the system from the start also. The Karate is actually Korean from Peter Choo - Karate (Tang Soo Do) -- maybe this is where you get the idea the pinans are from Shotokan. Also, although the influence of Okinawan Karate on Kajukenbo is definitely there, some say possibly from Miyagi Sensei (founder of Goju-Ryu) from the years he spent in Hawaii, IMHO. Kenpo is very scientific. It is to absorb what is useful and throw out what is not. The points A, C, and D are mostly true of typical kenpo techniques IME. The rest is not really part of "kenpo" but what I would call strategies or ways of thinking... these are not necessarily true for all. This is the same flaw in every martial art if it is trained only with scripted sequences against no resistance. I don't know how you come up with your observations. Repeating techniques is only for the purpose of ingraining them into seated instinct. Some say you have to do a technique 2000 times before that can happen. The techniques would also be IN ADDITION trained against a resisting opponent if they are ever to be tested and be useful. If schools of martial arts don't test out what they teach, then that has nothing to do with kenpo, it has to do with the students and teachers. If they do go full contact and train this stuff that way, then that is also up to the teachers and students. Just find a kenpo school that bangs and then make your judgements about it. If you want, I can point you in the direction of a few Kajukenbo based MMA schools that like to bang. The techniques, at least many of the older ones are based on body mechanics, yes you "expect" this to happen and it might not happen that way, but it isn't some theory, it is based on what DID and DOES happen in a real situation. Nothing, however, is going to work out exactly the same way every time. The long scripted sequences aren't practical as you point out. It is just a bunch of techniques put together, but in a real situation, you might only use a piece of the full thing and you probably will end up doing things in a different order. You just got to understand that any technique that does not flow as one movement isn't going to be as practical. e.g. techniques that take too long to do aren't usually practical. You should know this by the time you are an advanced belt, I would expect at least a 2nd or 3rd degree black belt to absolutely know this from fighting experience. I think it was around 40 years ago that the ground fighting stuff started to really get neglected. Teachers found out that grown men didn't really enjoy rolling on the ground with each other. Thanks to media (promoting ufc, mma, etc.), hopefully more schools are moving towards either cross-training or bring back some ground fighting into their training. At least bringing back more grappling. This is the same problem that was always there. It isn't just a Kenpo or Kajukenbo issue. Conversely, schools like BJJ are severely neglecting stand up striking and the need for all the different kinds of takedowns and sweeps found in Judo and other martial arts. The difference is that BJJ from the Gracies have always acknowledged they are lacking in that area... they have been on the up-and-up... on the other hand, many standup type striking schools never even realized just how much they have watered down or neglected some areas of training. I have known of a group of kenpo black belts that after years of training found out that they could not really fight because they never pressure tested or trained against resistance and heavy contact. Some of them went the route of fixing this and became better fighters, some of them quit instead. I don't know what your point is. Testing or not testing things out is a matter of the students and the teachers, it is not part of the kenpo system. Some people bang, others don't... What kenpo/kempo are you talking about here. Who claimed what, when, where? I have no idea what you are talking about. You have me confused on this one. Maybe if you could give an example that would help. Can you give examples of proven training methods that are rejected? I thought that it would be more the opposite that some hold on to old training methods that have somehow lost their purpose and benefits. I don't know... Nicely put... now I'm starting to agree with you :love: I would add that with experience and attention to detail these different pieces do tend to flow together quickly as if one technique. WHKD has a nice sequence for techniques: 1. primative, 2. mechanical, 3. technical, 4. creative, 5. fluid. So a new student starts with just the primative gross movements of a technique. Then they ingrain that generic movement into muscle memory (the repetition of 2000 time kind of thing). Then the technique is refined and corrected to get all the details correct. Then through resistance and testing the student learns to adapt the different pieces of the technique to make it work in a situation. However it isn't until the technique can be used in a fluid manner (instinctively with flow) that it is ready to used on a real situation (combat). Therefore, to be practical application, use only what you have developed to the fluid level in combat, more or less. Mostly I see what you wrote as a good thing. Keep up the posting. Well, I agree but also disagree. Mostly agree, but I don't agree that techniques used in MMA are going to be the best techniques to commit to seated instinct for many interested in self-defense. The instinct and training and the testing out things against opponents in MMA is good, it is just some of the techniques I have issues with teaching for self-defense. Just my thoughts.
'M' is the correct transliteration from Japanese. The 'N' styles are mostly descended from the Mitose branch (Parker, Tracy); Mitose's book used 'N'. Nick Cerio added the pinan forms to the Karazenpo he had learend from Pesare. He learned these from his practice of Shotokan. I've done a good deal of comparing what I practice to the pinans in Tang Soo Do, Shotokan, and other okinawan styles and they are very similar. Not the same, but easily recognizable. They were not developed at Palama. The series known (in Shaolin kempo) as "Kata 1-5" were developed by the Hawaiian lineage and are original.
Thanks for the info. I was confused because it was written, "Kempo as per this piece describes the branches of martial arts schools of Hawaiian lineage through the styles started by Professor K.S. Chow and James Mitose..." So you can see why I was thinking it should be kenpo and not kempo.
Rebel Wado, thanks for the detailed reply! This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping this thread would generate. Chow spelled it with an M to the best of my knowledge. I see it as inconsequential though at best. From what I hear Mitose spelled it wrong on a book he wrote and it stuck with alot of guys that trained with him. By the time Kempo got to the east coast via Gascon and then passed onto Pesare, Cerio, Villari and all from that branch of lineage, I believe that whatever Kajukenbo forms there were, were either altered or discarded for forms from other styles. The basic one pinan is a kata that seems fairly universal to Japanese and Okinawan martial arts. You train in the WHKD branch of Kajukenbo? From what I've heard it's the more modern (and as I'd call MMA-esque/influenced) branch? Anyway, I never knew that the Bo also stood for western boxing. All I've seen and been told is that it stood for chinese boxing which meant Kung Fu. I supposed Kajukenfu didn't sound cool enough I believe as said above professor Cerio trained in Shotokan to some degree and added in his experience from there, as well as certain techniques and kicks from TKD. I wish more Kem/npo guys would take this approach and be more open-minded.
A lot of the weaknesses that have been pointed out about kenpo/kempo in this thread are exactly what the founders of Kajukenbo tried to address when they created the Hawaiian mixed martial art they named, Kajukenbo. For many years some practitioners of kempo on the east coast have described their style of kempo as being like "Kajukenbo", when the truth of the matter is, it is nothing like Kajukenbo. As an example; the cirriculum of Shaolin Kempo has absolutely no techniques, or katas, that are identical to any techniques or katas, from the Kajukenbo system's "Original Method". This is very easy to verify, since the "Original Method" of kajukenbo has been documented on video under the supervision of Kajukenbo founder, Sijo Adriano Emperado. Now most people know of the five major systems and the founders that created Kajukenbo. But if they haven't practiced Kajukenbo, they do not understand the important role escrima and western boxing techniques and footwork have always had in the system. When these discussions come up, someone always seems to put Kajukenbo into the category of "Kenpo", when in fact Kajukenbo is a mixed martial art that has 5 major lineages, and two minor lineages, of which only one is kenpo.
Yes, I have seen fairly old writings where it is spelled Kara Ho Kempo (with the "M" instead of "N"). I had forgotten that. No doubt all these things are related, but I was under the impression that Kajukenbo (Adriano D. Emperado) and Karazenpo Go Shijutsu (Victor "Sonny" Gascon) were two different branches from Kara Ho Kempo (K.S. Chow), and American Kenpo (Ed Parker) was a third branch. So they are all related but they are all different branches. I don't know that there ever were any Kajukenbo forms in Karazenpo or American Kenpo, they are all separate branches from Chow. Although people have been known to cross-train between different branches. My instructor was CHA-3, Gaylord Method, and KSDI sub-branches of Kajukenbo, for example. I started Gaylord Method Kajukenbo but now for a number of years have been under the KSDI. I would not doubt that many before me have done similar cross-training. No, I really like WHKD but I train under Kajukenbo, not WHKD. What Professor Bishop said in a previous post addresses this very well. I don't know, but Tang Soo Do is very much in the forms the same as Shotokan, so there could also be influence from Tang Soo Do instead of directly from Shotokan. Thanks I'm not sure, maybe I'm in agreement with what you are meaning. However, I think you need resistance BEFORE you can learn effective technique. You don't start with effective techniques, you develop them or re-engineer them each and every time. I divide techniques up into basics, application, and practical application. Basics are techniques that could work given the right situation, but mainly are for learning purposes. They can teach generic mechanical movements, they can help teach the learning of principles, and they can help to ingrain these things into seated instinct. Anyway, you start with basic techniques as part of the learning process... you would not learn how to fight using just the basics. Application is when you try to use the technique against a resisting opponent (although it may not be full speed and it might not be full resistance). For instance, I might practice knife counters at half speed but against near full resistance. I could try every technique I know against resistance and maybe only one or two would actually work. I would then figure out why those one or two worked and use that knowledge to get more of the techniques to work. Eventually, I hope to develop practical application. Practical application cannot be taught, it has to be learned and come instinctively. cool Hmmm... perhaps, but there is more to it than that IMHO. Part of it is learning how to get your opponent to give you the responses you want... how to set them up for your next technique. For example, if I want to get a person to bend forward, I could kick them in the hip track or small intestines/groin with a front snap kick with a bit of a push to it. Doing the kick in this manner helps me to bend the opponent forward. What can be learned is that it doesn't take a lot of force to bend many people forward, but more importantly, even so, you learn to kick someone in the groin with a good enough amount of force that it will even be possible to bend a very large person forward. If, on the other hand, someone didn't know what to do to bend someone forward, they might try a rising/spear front kick the groin, instead of bending someone forward, this type of kick is more designed to make them stand up straighter and lose strength in their legs. What I'm saying is that it isn't a technique based on a theory of what a person will do, it is more learning the technique to get the desired results. What you say makes good sense. I think there is some confusion between us on what is meant by fighting on the ground. Fighting consists of striking, grabbing, biting, grappling, hooking, kicking, etc. Grappling is a subset of fighting. Grappling is not merely a subset of fighting but it is a specialization. Grapplers get really good at grappling. In some regards, the way to beat a good fighter is to grapple them because maybe they are a good fighter but they aren't that good at fighting against a good grappler. Conversely, one way to beat a good grappler is to fight them rather than grapple them. The reason is that maybe the grappler is a great grappler but isn't well rounded enough to deal with the strikes and kicks combined with the grappling that the good fighter has. I don't know about them all but IMO, Chow was for sure a bad ass. Mitose probably also a bad ass. Both I respect. They could fight, they might not have been as specialized in ground fighting, particularly grappling on the ground, but they wouldn't just shrival up and die on the ground either. I would not want to be on the receiving end of a "dance of death" from Professor Chow. Ground fighting declined because less people passed on the ground techniques and people did not train groundwork regularly in schools of just about all striking oriented martial arts. Meanwhile, the grapplers such as in BJJ continued to improve and specialize in ground grappling. Fighters, having neglected the training on the ground, really didn't know what to do against great grapplers. It was not something that happened overnight, we are talking generations of martial artists here. To the point of zero ground work in some schools. Well good luck. Keep up the good work and the posting. I just still like to point out that not all techniques are intended to be useful for fighting, many are more for learning purposes. A student or even a master, finds very few techniques they will be able to pull off when the adrenaline hits and in all the chaos of combat. After some practical application is developed, many of these learning techniques start to become more practical for use in a fight because the person knows what kinds of things to look for in a technique for it to be practical. This is something learned more than taught, IMHO. I will have to check this out. Interesting. Sounds like a footwork issue... Foot work is very important, especially when weapons are added to the mix. Well we are guilty as charged and yet not guilty. I don't think we are any better than many other schools. We have flaws and strengths. The only difference maybe is that we don't believe we have enough time in class to teach everything. We stick mainly with fundamentals, conditioning, basics, kata, and self-defense (which includes everything from ground work to weapons). We then require students to go out and do other things for experience. Tournaments, open sparring at other schools, grappling competitions, Mauy Thai competitions, MMA competitions, boxing, etc. or something like that. Oh and we also train with some medium to heavy contact. Not banging as much as many other schools but it is not unusual to have the occassional bloody nose and black and blue bruises from when we do bang. No, but like I said, I really like WHKD. Yes, MMA can be a great base.
Thank you Professor Bishop for replying, you said exactly what I was thinking. And Rebel Wado, I'll reply back in a bit when I get some time.
Hmmm Pretty nice article! The name Chinese Kara-Ho Kempo Karate has been spelled that way for many years- If I can remember correctly, Professor Chow used an "N" but changed it to an "M" when Parker began teaching his art and spelled it with an "N". Have a great day!
No no no, Kajukenbo only partly claims lineage to Chow, as Emperado was the one Kempoist that was in the group that formed the system. It is not a branch, but rather an entirely different system. Ed Parker was under Chow for a short time I believe, but interviews show that Chow didn't seem to think too highly of him or even consider him a student. Chow has been quoted saying that Parker was nothing more than a Kempo student of Emperado's. Eh, whatever. It's really inconsequential to me, as the rest of fighting theories and methods from whatever branch of fighting they came from didn't seem to have much wieght on the foundation of Kempo fighting theory. Heh, I think we're on different pages here. You seem to be describing the steps needed to "create" effective techniques, I'm talking about utilizing ones we've already got. My argument is that alot of Ken/mpo techniques that are in current curriculums are not effective or practical, and that proper resistance must utilized to get the best possible effect to learn to use a practical technique. Yes and no. I agree with what you are saying, but the argument boils down to "do the techniques that are currently being taught represent the best possible techniques to achieve those desired results." This comes down to something more along the lines of what I'd have to show you in person, rather than just elude to via text on this board. Here's a visual example of what I'd refer to as an impractical technique no matter how you slice it, http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...851539&q=kenpo This is showing of a technique that is based on what one "wants" to happen, over what will more than likely happen. The idea that the person will just stand there and receive a beating without striking back is flawed from the onset. why thank you Well after looking at turns of events in current day, it seems that a solid grappling foundation is needed before you could strike or use any of the above listed foul tactics. Without a solid foundation and position, all of the above is useless against even a novice grappler. Hey I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows considering it wasn't a major part of most MA schools training curriculum back then. But in the end, it doesn't change what "we" should be doing and training in today. Yes yes, I know all the arguments. "devloping hip movement" "developing flow" etc...And to a degree I agree with those reasons, but I find it all too often that BS artists try to cop out on those excuses when it comes to them teaching ineffective technique and getting called out on it. It's a gray area, and it seems alot of instructors are abusing it, and are intentionally further muddying the lines. Yes...as in incremental resistance drilling, and live free-form sparring IMO. Don't say I didn't warn you...it'll make your head hurt. The abuse of the fact that ancient CMA's that had a foundation in Chi Gung were often referred to generically as "Ch'aun Fa" has caused many modern day Kempoists to distort history and claim lineage to the Shaolin Temple and Bodhidharma. It's an issue alright. Full contact fighting is not a necessity of a good school. Live training in a productive and realistic environment is. Sounds like you got a good thing going. Thanks for the replies!
Emperado comes under Chow in lineage. Lineage trees are not about system of martial art, they are about people. I suppose I should have said that Emperado is a branch under Chow. Yeah, different pages. Actually I'm talking about practical application, nothing to do with learning practical techniques. Practical application is application that works when and how you need it to. Practical application is like the holy grail of martial arts. It is a goal and most never completely can reach it. I see practical technique as learning proven technique. Practical technique is using the right tool for the job at hand. I do not disagree that practical technique is a very good starting point in learning what is useful. Much of the technique that I do see taught is not proven or practical as taught, but then I think it is taught that way as a teaching aid and not to be taken literally as the way to do it in combat. When taking practical technique and applying pressure testing to it, then that is certainly one method that can lead to practical application. My point is that the practical applicaton that comes out of it might not look like the same thing as this practical technique that was the starting point. My point is that the end result does not have to look like what you start with when it comes to practical application. It is what is developed over time and then applied in a real situation. It can appear quite different between different individuals and situations, yet it all started from the same thing. I hope this clarifies things. Can't get to the video, but I see your point. All I can say is that scripted sequences may not work in a real situation, but sometimes they can change a person/individual so that the person is more ready to deal with a real situation. The guy taking the hits, has to learn to accept hits just as the person throwing all the attacks is learning continous attack. Although none of what I say here changes the validity of your statements. No problem, just giving credit where credit is due. No you don't need a foundation in grappling, even today, to fight well IMO. You do need to be good at something as well as ALSO being well rounded. Know enough about fighting good grapplers to be able to put up a good offense and defense verse them. Fighters in the past that were defeated by grapplers easily were probably not that well rounded and did not know how to fight a good grappler. Fighters today in UFC and MMA are generally much better rounded and some are good grapplers, others aren't but even the ones that aren't have not neglected the value in knowing how to fight a grappler, standing and on the ground. The important points I believe is that you have to be good at something (no jack of all trades master of none) and at the same time you have to be fairly well rounded. There is a big difference between novice and experience grapplers. More so than novice and experienced fighters. A novice fighter can still use grappling, punching, kicking, and whatever dirty tricks they know to win a fight. A grappler is a bit more limited and unless they have good submissions or other methods of winning related to grappling, they will most likely have to resort to fighter's tactics of also punching, kicking, etc. to win. I have trained with grapplers of various levels of experience. Even those with years of wrestling experience. Those that knew either how to hook or submit very well, and those that had really good takedowns, were much harder to deal with than the ones that did not. Many wrestlers seemed good on the ground, for instance, but they eventually lost because they weren't that good at the submissions. I would not think a novice grappler would have much variety of submissions, takedowns, or hooking that they are really good at doing.
KempoFist: Excellent post! Believe it or not, I wrote a paper with a similar theme (though for karate) for my English Comp class. One thing I learned: this type of essay is only for martial artists, as hardly anyone else will know what you're talking about! On the grappling issue, I can see Rebel Wado's point about there being a difference between novice and skilled grapplers . I'm not a kempoka, but it's my understanding that there are some locks and chokes used from a standing possition? Using those principles to train them on the ground shouldn't be much of a problem. However, the actuall wrestling skill, the feel for the opponent's body movement, force, and weight distribution, well that's something you just have to put in the hours for. I'm not sure there's any way to teach it other than experience (rolling); that's experience that I imagine most people who get into Kempo would rather spend learning how to hit stuff, the mindset being they signed up for kempo and not wrestling. Hey, I love wrestling and grappling, but I see kempo primarily as a striking art, and I think the groundfighting might be of the "survival" kind: guard sweeps, mount escapes, basic hold-downs and locks, but the emphasis being on sprawl-and-brawl tactics. Maybe that's what you're getting at, and I've missed it? Also, do you think by adding these other elements, the art would still be Kempo, or would it simply be MMA under a different name? To what end would these changes occur? To what extent? Man, I love playing Devil's advocate!
Observing that in North American you fellows are mostly practicing Kempo Karate, whilst here in Britain we are mostly practiving Kempo Jiu Jitsu I'd argue that the use of throwing and grappling techniques sit very well within Kempo - which remains a thoroughly healthy mix of striking techniques (at the core I think of everybody's art), throwing, grappling and weapons work. There are a few locks and chokes by the way that work *only* upright, or *only* on the ground (mostly the latter, where you make use of body-weight in a manner not really feasible upright), but in general they all work in either situation. That said, whilst I think that over here we practice groundwork more than you seem to, we firmly acknowledge it as a last ditch situation to be entered only when inavoidable, and exited as soon as possible. The same isn't true of throwing however - why hit somebody with your fist when you can occasionally manage to get them with an entire planet! (Okay, a lame line, but great when teaching throws to beginners.) Is Kempo an MMA? Good question; personally I'd see it the other way around. I don't think that the "ancients" from which most of our techniques came practiced ONLY throwing and grappling techniques, or ONLY kicking, or ONLY striking - I think that they looked for a healthy mix that gave them the upper hand in any situation. This is what modern Kempo is trying to do as well - ensure a healthy balance. An art such as Judo, TKD or Shotokan could, in my opinion, be argued to be an SMA - Split Martial Art - incomplete! G
