Is Kenpo training realistic?

(recently posted on Facebook by Mr. Sascha Williams)

Was Mr. Parker correct?

Regarding Family Grouping, What-If, and Formulation Phase Training, do these methods of training really develop instinctive and effective reactions?

And what explains the fact that some black belts are very good at reacting with Kenpo in street situations, while others seem unprepared?

Looking at the Kenpo community as a whole, we can identify several main schools of thought on the subject, which we can divide into three main groups:

1. Those who spend most of their time memorizing and performing Mr. Parker's pre-designed techniques (ideal phase emphasis)

2. Those who attempt to become more effective by focusing on free reaction drills.

3. Those who employ Mr. Parker's formula of internalizing his system. (Family grouping, What-If, Formulation phase)

But are they all effective? 

Each of these methods offer some qualities. For example,  group #1 preserves Mr. Parker's material by mimicking the techniques of each belt level with all the various applications of basics that they introduce. The proponents of this method argue that this prevents watering down of the system or the substituting of Ed Parker basics with those of other systems of martial arts.

This group is large and follows a simple recipe: memorize the technique sequences and perform them the same way over and over until they become automatic (ideal phase repetition).

However, opponents of this method argue that it lacks the development of preparing for surprise attacks and counters from the opponent and is therefore ineffective. 

In contrast, group #2 focuses on fighting rather than memorization of patterns, structures, or pre designed techniques. 

Their main argument is often that their method is unencumbered by the need of memorizing long techniques which are then too complex to react with.

But opponents of this method argue that it doesn't actually develop new, previously unknown basics, but instead reinforces only those reactions we already possessed.

This group is much smaller and more exclusive, often plagued with unpredictable problems such as injuries and failure to develop confidence in Mr. Parker's original techniques due to being overwhelmed by the sheer number of possible attacks and counters. 

What discourages students to just react like this, against an unlimited amount of possible attacks, is that it doesn't actually provide an opportunity to carefully select the best Kenpo counter for each attack, simply because there is not enough time. Additionally, this type of training hinders reviewing or measuring your progress, two vital components of controlled learning and advancing.

Group #3 follows Mr Parker's teachings of using family grouping, what-if practice, and formulation phase training in order to address the development of perceptual speed, mental speed and physical speed separately. 

Their emphasis is not on “react with what you already have internalized”, but rather to learn to react with basics that are not yet part of their subconscious reactions, until they become instinctive and therefore immediate.

This group argues that merely memorizing techniques cannot accomplish that. Neither does sparring type free reaction training.

This group also asserts that Mr. Parker was correct and his training methods produce the desired results of reacting with Kenpo techniques on a subconscious level, cultivating immediate reactions which continually intercept or prevent any of the opponent's counters.

This group also has few members, but for different reasons than group #2, the primary one being simple misunderstanding of the process. Many get these training methods mixed up with the previous mentioned approach of free reaction response.

As a result, without realizing it,  they often introduce confusion and complexity into Mr. Parker's drills as described above with group #2.

Some opponents of these family grouping, what-if, and formulation phase training methods argue that this is only theory and cannot replace actual fighting in order to develop realistic reactions.

So who is right?

Rather than providing my own answer, I encourage the reader to draw his or her own conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the drills presented in this short video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH8Z0JYT1xo

I believe I am making a clear case regarding not only the effectiveness of this type of training as well as the need for it, but also the ease in which it can be duplicated and taught in class.

We cannot practice individual techniques “in a vacuum”, without also practicing how to switch between techniques in an instant.

A street fighter becomes effective to the degree that they can hide and mask their actual, final commitment. He or she probably won't attack in the same, obvious and familiar manner that is initially introduced to us in class (e.g.: the use of step through foot maneuvers with each attack)

In other words, he or she might not be obvious.

Yet almost all the attacks for the individual Ed Parker's Kenpo Self Defense techniques start in the distance, requiring our training partner to either use a step-through maneuver or a shuffle to reach us. And of course, that will then telegraph the attack. 

That allows the student to succeed and gain confidence.

But that doesn't mean the techniques are against unrealistic attacks. What it does mean is that (at first) we start with the easiest attacks to identify. 

This was designed with the beginner in mind. 

We should realize that Mr. Parker understood the importance of a gradient approach when teaching students.

So before we can teach a student how to react to a more realistic attack, enhanced with fakes, faints, deceptions of depth and timing (as we are accustomed to in point fighting) and executed from shorter distances, we first teach the student to respond to the more obvious (easy to identify) attacks. And most often, that means using step throughs.

Family grouping (introduced at blue belt by Mr Parker) goes beyond that and provides the next step in developing fast and accurate reactions.

Just as I demonstrate in the video, we now gradually increase realism by adding fakes and faints, and/or deceptions of depth and timing and/or attacks from shorter distances, and we GRADUALLY increase the number of attacks we switch to, first just alternating between two attacks, then between three, and so on.

As is easy to see in the video, this creates a controlled process of internalizing specific reactions that is easy to implement and creates the desired results.