Rich Hale's Pacific Kenpo Karate

A Matter of Principles

By Rich Hale

If I were to open a private school that specialized in teaching English, my clients would likely assume I was going to teach them how to speak, read, and write the English language. Therefore, if I were to do nothing more than teach my clients a series of commonly used English phrases; they'd likely become dissatisfied with my service and quit my school. Yet every day, in Kenpo, students are being taught a series of commonly used Kenpo phrases, and being promoted from one belt to the next, oblivious that they’ve never actually been taught Kenpo. In most cases the instructors themselves are unaware they aren't actually teaching Kenpo, because they’re simply teaching what they've been taught – how they've been taught it.

So, what is Kenpo anyway? For years I thought I knew exactly what Kenpo was, until one day when Mr. Parker told me he didn't want to teach me techniques or forms. He said anyone could teach me techniques and forms; he wanted to teach me Kenpo. Honestly, at that moment, I was completely lost. I had spent years learning one Kenpo technique after another and one Kenpo form after another, so if I hadn’t been learning Kenpo, then just what the hell had I been learning?

Looking back, I can tell you exactly what I had been doing. I had been memorizing the material Mr. Parker used to teach Kenpo, but I had not actually been learning Kenpo. Let's go back to the comparison of learning a language and how it compares to learning Kenpo. We've all read Mr. Parker's comparison of how basics are like words, techniques are like sentences, and that forms are like paragraphs and short stories, etc. But now think of a simple sentence spoken with no expression. A monotone sentence can easily fail to convey any useful information even though all the words are present. Now think of listening to an entire speech or, worse yet, an entire audio book read by an expressionless reader. This is memorized Kenpo without the application of principles.

Early on, I didn't see it that way; especially after my techniques and forms had become very fast and crisp. Not when my uniform was popping and sweat was flying. I must say, to the untrained observer, I was really quite impressive. Only I wasn't using my hips, I didn't anchor properly, I didn't control my opponent's actions, I didn't really apply the principles of Kenpo - other than maybe a few by pure accident.

By the way, I'm not just talking about my first couple of months, or even my first couple of years in Kenpo. I'm talking about my first eight years or so. It wasn't until I started to study directly under Mr. Parker that I began to understand what Mr. Parker had taught and written about for years. You don't master the art of Kenpo through memorizing the curriculum of the art, but through embracing the principles of the art. I apologize if I appear to be beating a dead horse here, but even though everyone in Kenpo will stand behind me when I say our art is based on principles, how many schools actually teach a principle based curriculum?

To fully understand what I'm saying, think of what you were "required" to learn in order to get your yellow belt, orange belt, etc. If you're an instructor, or a school owner, think of what you "require" your students to learn in order to earn their belts. In almost every case our "requirements" are expressed in specific basics, techniques, forms and sets. For yellow belt I was required to learn a horse stance, neutral bow, forward bow, etc. I was required to learn the self defense techniques Delayed Sword, Aggressive Twins, and so on. My form requirement was Short Form 1 and my required set was Star Block.

Not that the principles are left out entirely, they're often mentioned, talked about, and even required in some cases, but learning the principles are generally not required in the same way as are basics, techniques, forms and sets. Look on the wall of most Kenpo schools and what do you see? Generally, you see the requirements for each belt level, which again consist of basics, techniques, forms and sets. But how often do you see a list of principles required for each belt level? How is it that we can say we teach a principle based system, but fail to even provide a list of required principles to our students? Yes, the principles are listed in most belt manuals, but instead of having a prominent place of their own – more deserving of their importance - they're most often just included along with the rest of the "Terminology".

This is what I suggest:

Separate the principles from the rest of the terminology by moving all of the principles to a list of their own. This procedure alone can be somewhere between a little tricky and very controversial. For example is a parry a principle, or is it simply a term? It's described as redirecting a blow or a kick by riding or going with the force. One could say that because you're "riding" with the force, it's a principle, but on my list it's simply a term that describes an action; just like blocking, kicking and striking. Blocking, kicking, striking, and parrying are all actions that are made more effective through the proper use of principles, like anchoring, torquing, riding, etc.

To make the process easier, I suggest you develop your list of principles in several stages. First, look up the term "principle" and get a good look at what you're searching for. Principle is described as: A comprehensive and fundamental rule stemming from a theory which, through devoted analysis, developed into the proven characteristics and facts that made it doctrine. Let's refine that to a principle is: A comprehensive and fundamental rule. The fact that it stemmed from a theory and was developed through devoted analysis only supports how what was once only a theory became a rule – or principle.

With this information it makes it much easier to separate terms like, parry, technique, form, set, kata, attention stance, neutral bow, etc., from our list of principles. Next, separate (what I call) primary principles from (what I call) secondary principles. For example no one will receive so much as a yellow belt from me, until they have a basic understanding of economy of motion, back-up mass, torque, gravitational marriage, and timing. On the other hand, I'm not as concerned about how well versed someone is in the difference between the angle of opportunity and the angle of mobility. I'm not saying these principles are unimportant. I'm just saying that I see a need to prioritize everything we teach, including the principles. And in my opinion, knowing the difference between back-up mass and torque is more important than knowing the difference between the angle of opportunity and the angle of mobility.

Now that we've separated the general terminology from the principles and separated the primary principles from the secondary principles, let's determine which principles we want to require at each belt level. Notice that I didn't say what principles we want to "teach" at each belt level, but what principles we want to "require" at each belt level. This way we aren't going to limit the number of principles a student can be exposed to at any given belt level, but because we also don't want to burden a student with an unrealistic amount of information at any belt level, we should have a finite number of principles that they're "required" to know, understand and apply at each belt level.

Below is a partial list of principles divided into the various belt levels. This is not "the list", it's just a list. I expect your list and mine will be a little different and may change many times in the years to come. As we all become better acquainted with the principles it's quite possible that what we consider most important today, may be different tomorrow. Something else I remember Mr. Parker sharing with me was that he didn't like people carving everything he said into stone. Mr. Parker continually revised his teachings and writings in an effort to better teach his art to others. The principles didn't change, but the methods he used to convey those principles were continually refined.

Yellow Belt

Back-Up Mass

Economy of Motion

Marriage of Gravity

Torque

Timing

Orange Belt:

Check

Contact Penetration

Frictional Pull

Settling

Tailoring

Purple Belt:

Borrowed Force

Outer Rim

Outer Perimeter

Delayed Movement

Opposing Forces

Blue Belt:

Alignment

Bounce

Contact Manipulation

Contouring

Geometric Path & Line

Green Belt:

Anchor

Compact Unit

Control Manipulation

Rebounding

Critical Timing

Brown Belt:

Accumulated Force

Fulcruming

Continuity

Directional Harmony

Insert / Variable Expansion

Now that you've had an opportunity to read a list, let me reiterate: This is not an all encompassing list; it’s just a list that gives us a place to start. But now that we have a list, how do we put it to work?

It's well known that the amount of material we have, in American Kenpo, can be daunting to say the least. But when a student asks what's required of them in order to be a black belt, we point to, as many as a hundred and fifty-four techniques and say that's what they have to know (along with all the basics, sets, forms and freestyle techniques). Yet, how many black belts have forgotten a large number of the very same techniques they require someone else to remember in order to be a black belt? Of course, as black belts, we say that even though we may have forgotten some of the material, we're still highly qualified black belt belts. In fact, in some cases, it seems the amount of material forgotten increases in direct proportion to one's rank.

By the way, this isn't a rank bashing article. I know more than a few great black belts who don't remember all the material they had to memorize in order to earn their black belts and it doesn't diminish them in my eyes one little bit. I personally don’t claim the ability to spontaneously perform every technique in the system, if someone was to shout them out to me, but I'm not ready to retire my black belt status either.

What I do find disappointing though, is how many black belts don't know the difference between borrowed force and opposing forces. What seems to be lacking is what Mr. Parker always wanted people to know and that's the principles of Kenpo. Again I repeat his words, not mine, "I teach these techniques not for the sake of teaching the techniques, but for the principles that are involved in the techniques."

I propose we consider creating a list of principles that are required for each belt level and post them on our wall. Then when someone asks what's required of them for a given belt level, we point out - first and foremost - the list of principles. Then, when they ask what the other list is we can say that's a list of self defense techniques we use to teach what the principles are and how they're applied. When they ask if they're required to memorize all the techniques, we can say, "Well, it's not so much a matter of being required to memorize the techniques. It's actually more the end result of utilizing the techniques to master the principles that result in the techniques memorization." Then we can tell them that as time goes along they'll likely forget some of the techniques, and that's okay, because we're not teaching a system based on memorization, but a system based on the proper application of principles.

The first question I get when presenting this approach to teaching Kenpo is, "But many of the principles you listed for blue, green and brown belt are in and should to be applied to the yellow, orange and purple belt techniques." Yes, I agree completely. Nothing says additional principles can't be taught along the way, but I don't think yellow belts should pass or fail based on their ability to apply accumulated force and directional harmony. You can look at it this way; it’s important that Kenpo students be familiar with two-man techniques, but is it important that “yellow belt” students be familiar with two-man techniques? Kenpo forms can include take-downs, but should “yellow belt” forms include take-downs? We divide all our basics, techniques, sets, and forms into belt levels, so why not divide the principles into belt levels as well? It won’t prevent us from teaching additional principles, but it will insure that we do teach the principles.

The purpose of this article is to bring attention to how little attention many instructors place on the principles of Kenpo. Although it may be a little controversial and spark some debate, that's okay. If the debate is about which principles should be taught at what belt level, then the article has accomplished its goal.

Open this paper as a pdf document