With the advent of the technique archive, talk of ‘standardization’ has begun. Is this a good thing? On one side of the debate, there is the ‘minimum standards’ position, where anyone walking into any SK / SKK school would be able to expect certain things. On the other hand, I have the nagging fear that the ‘ minimum standards’ will emphasize the ‘minimum’ at the expense of the ‘standards’. I feel a small core curriculum is good. I fear that the point of nuance is being missed. I think diversity is healthy, and that not all folks want all things. Once upon a time, I was working with someone at an “instructor’s meeting” on knife defenses, and my ideas (lifted from FMA) freaked them out. Needless to say, most folks there didn’t want my input. The folks there wanted to standardize on the traditional ‘cross block and wristlock’ defenses they had been doing. If we’re going to standardize, let’s let it be a core to develop around.
Sorry for the 'quiet'.
I’ve just finished a class in ‘Exercise Physiology’, so the last couple weeks have been a flurry of lab reports and exams. I’ve gotten some really nice feedback on the site, and I hope to resume adding information – although lately it’s been mostly catching up on sleep. On the bright side, it seems to have sparked some discussion on the shaolin kempo group on yahoo. It’s a good place to discuss these kinds of items – check it out.
How about combination #93?
I happened to have been taught combination #93 at a seminar once upon a time, and then one day about four years ago, it was posted on the old yahoo newsgroup for our enjoyment. I just stumbled across that post, so it reminded me. Since the two folks who described it haven’t had contact for quite a number of years, and both were pretty high up in the organization, before starting their own, I think it is pretty good corroborations. I’ll start an ‘other combinatons‘ page for ‘out of order’ ones, until I get more surrounding ones.
