Kempo or San Soo Kung Fu

[White Warlock]

It was worth 3 cents.

 

Yes, san soo focuses on 'controlling' your opponent from one injury into the next and it is a very aggressive system. That is not to say the training is aggressive, only the mindset... as it focuses heavily on 'dirty tactics,' such as hair pulling, biting, eye gouging, groin ripping, etc. Things often tossed into other systems as fluff are the meat and potatoes of san soo and many people have walked out of their first session either disgusted or unnerved.

 

The chuan fa / kempo / kenpo styles actually have in common with san soo a study into the consequence of motion, in that everything you do creates a response from your opponent, which you can predict and present your opponent to the next stage in his defeat. I.e., 'controlling' your opponent from one injury into the next.

 

Kenpo is not as aggressive as san soo, but san soo relies heavily on the windmill system (circular), while kenpo strives for both circular and linear techniques. Both offer excellent insight into producing devastating and unrelenting attacks. However, i noted the more traditional kempo styles a bit too high-centered and less stepped (not as many actions completed before ending an attack).

 

Personal note: i've found quite a bit of 'pseudo-intellectual chitter' in Ed Parker's writings, despite his providing great strides in the morphing of kenpo for the American way of learning. Still, it's good reading.

[delta1]

"flowery"

 

I guess, we do look good and smell sweet.

I like AK, but I feel the system ... that it's a very complicated system. I have no doubt that it is an effective self-defense system though.

 

Some people do think it is complicated, usually for a couple of reasons. One is that there is a lot of mental work involved. AK wants you to have a good understanding of the principles and concepts involved in what you are doing. Not everyone likes this aproach.

 

The other reason is, in addition to offensive moves, a lot of basics, and forms and sets, there are a lot of techniques. Some people question why you might need four techniques for the same attack in some cases. And they rightly say that picking and running the correct technique in a real assault is not practical. This is more due to a misunderstanding of what techniques do for you, and how they are to be applied. There are multiple defenses for similar attacks because there are going to be subtle differences in every assault. If you pull up a technique and run it successfully, that is good. But they are meant to teach you to move and defend aggressively and instinctively under different assaults. You are not meant to pull the right technique from a list of 154 to >200 techniques (depending on the school/system) and run it as per the textbook. You are meant to be able to move effectively under varrying circumstances to take out an opponent.

 

As I've said often here before, AK isn't for everyone. It has a unique training approach, which some flourish under and others don't do well with at all. And it isn't the only effective style out there. Everyone finds their own niche. I'm not a pureist- I enjoy training with other stylists. But AK will allways be my base (much to the disgust of my Taiji instructor). For me, there's nothing like it.

[delta1]

Yes, san soo focuses on 'controlling' your opponent from one injury into the next and it is a very aggressive system. ...The chuan fa / kempo / kenpo styles actually have in common with san soo a study into the consequence of motion, in that everything you do creates a response from your opponent, which you can predict and present your opponent to the next stage in his defeat. I.e., 'controlling' your opponent from one injury into the next.

 

Kenpo is not as aggressive as san soo, but san soo relies heavily on the windmill system (circular), while kenpo strives for both circular and linear techniques. Both offer excellent insight into producing devastating and unrelenting attacks.

 

Good observations. Did you ever study American Kenpo?

[White Warlock]

Good observations. Did you ever study American Kenpo?

Thanks. I've had plenty of "share-sessions" with competent practioners of AK, as well as other styles, but hesitate to say that i 'studied' it.

 

Clearly not in the traditional sense of the word, no.

SS is a very aggressive martial art. Basically, as per the head of that dojo, they don't believe in defense at all..it's all ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!! Sorry, I disagree with that approach.

I suppose that's part of the communication problem that happens sometimes when people attempt to explain the 'differences' in san soo's approach. Attack is the focus, in that it holds to the belief the best defense is a good offense... and san soo can be very offensive to some.

 

Seriously though, san soo does instruct in defense, but only as a precursor to entering into an offense. The misconception happens in that the first few years of san soo training is fixated on building an aggressive, all-offense mentality. Removing such silly notions as allowing the opposition to 'spar' with you, or punch back. Basically, it is focused on building the proper mindset and training you to 'take care of business first' and ask questions later. Of learning to convert the predator into the prey, and learning to convert yourself from being the prey, into being the predator. In many respects, san soo is far more zen in application than most Japanese systems i've witnessed or experienced.

 

At the later stages of san soo, rather detailed studies are made into 'regaining' the offense, which is, in itself... a study in defense. As well, learning how to use your environment, including the bodies of your assailants, becomes the emphasis, in that you begin studies into obstructing and distracting your opponents, causing them to be hindered by each other (assuming multiple adversaries) or by surrounding objects (think Jackie Chan in Rumble in the Bronx).

 

But, throughout the study process of san soo, the psychology of war is examined and discussed. A detailed look into the initiation of conflicts and the means to 'halt' or 'deescalate.'

 

For although san soo enters into the study of applying lethal force, it steadfastly reinforces avoiding conflict whenever reasonably possible. The sheer lethality of the studies actually helps reinforce the 'common sense' of such an approach, in that if you are able to commit to such violence, why not as well your opponent?

 

Notice the reverse mindset. Rather than looking at how your opponent could cause lethal force, therefore you must study to defend against such by, in turn, learning to cause lethal force, the approach in san soo is more along the lines of learning to be 'willing' and 'able' to commit lethal force, and therein learning to respect the 'potential' of your opposition. I.e., the typical mindset of, "I must be able to prevent you from killing me." as opposed to san soo's, "I can kill you, therefore you could kill me. Let us not die today."

 

In learning to avoid conflict, and in learning to respect the fragility of life, it goes something like this, "let us both agree to run away."

[daoshi]

It may be possible to learn self defence without learning to fight and testing your skills, but your first test will be when you really need to defend yourself.

 

You will not truly learn to defend yourself without full contact sparring and either tournament competition or street fighting. You can find that in San Shou, Judo, Thai Boxing, Western Boxing, Olympic Wrestling, full contact TKD, etc.

 

A good exercise is to reach black belt level in a non contact system and then enter a full contact tournament. The first full power hook to the jaw or full velocity Judo throw to the floor can be a real eye opener.

[Red J]

It all really depends on the school and instructor.

 

I have found a great kempo school where we really focus on much of which has been mentioned above. The multiple scenarios, linear and circular techniques, and my favorite, the controlling of an opponent from one stage to the next. The way most Kempo is practiced would lead some to believe that it is overkill (sometimes I joke that my partner just went from a misdemeanor to a felony). Really, it teaches you to control the situation, how to combine multiple techniques in case you need them (your opponent counters, you miss, or any number of things that can happen), and how to finish a fight to the most appropriate conclusion (escape, submission, immobolization, etc.) The philosophy has really helped me to "flow" from one technique to another putting together different combinations to use as the situation dictates.