|
Joseph Simonet insists that studying one art will forever limit what you hope to accomplish.
Introduction Joseph Simonet looks back on the birth of his modern martial arts revolution with an almost John Nashian appreciation. Nash had his chalk, his blackboard, his equations. Simonet has his shack, his candlelight, his wooden dummy. Nash had figures, Simonet had forms. Nash fought demons; Simonet fought stagnation.
The beginning came on a blustery, miserable excuse for a night in a small wooden shack near Denver. Outside, the temperature kissed single digits. But inside the battered frame, Simonet, already a decorated kenpo black belt, pierced the flickering shadows with a dervish of hundreds of unrelated movements. History was being made and the more Simonet battered the dummy, the more steam rose from his sweat-soaked body. The answer was out there, somewhere between the dots of perspiration and bloodied knuckles.
For the record, Simonet put the finishing touches on his signature Slam Set, a self-described alphabet of movement that now numbers 116. But more importantly, he announced to the world that he was not about to sit idly by and toe the company line.
It’s been nearly a quarter-century since that discovery and you can only imagine the slings and arrows Simonet and his KI Fighting Concepts has endured along the way. Who would ever think of bucking tradition in a world that emphasizes tradition at all costs?
Through it all, Simonet looks for freedom from conceptual bondage and searches for martial arts comparisons to 2 + 2. “I am on mind, one person,” he admits.
A beautiful martial arts mind indeed.
--Dave Cater  INSIDE KUNG-FU: Describe a perfect training session.
JOSEPH SIMONET: I go through siu lum from wing chun and then juru from pentjak silat serak. Then I do the classical set on the wooden dummy, followed by a third of the Yang style tai chi long form and finally the Slam Set.
What I am doing is tapping into a variety of motor skills that are baseline expressions of classical arts and that keeps me sharp. I have 20 kenpo techniques within my board and I go through those techniques on the other side. So I’ve got juru; I’ve got kenpo; I’ve got tai chi; I’ve got the classical set; and I have the Slam Set. That, to me, is the perfect workout for expressing different motor skills encapsulating different martial art foundational lines. I look all martial arts as languages—the language of movement. And while so many of these arts share the same sentence and grammars structure, they are all expressed differently. Then I get on the bags and do heavy bag solo training with sinawali. If I am going to access these traditional arts and keep them relevant I have to be up on them.
IKF: Why weren’t you satisfied with kenpo alone?
JS: Because their models break down. One reason I got into martial arts is that I saw these black belts in martial arts schools and these guys were men. They had calloused knuckles and muscular arms. So I started kenpo. But once I got a black belt, instead of being empowered I was actually technique-oriented and limited in scope. The model actually broke down and though the actual movements and elements of kenpo are sound, the training methodologies are lacking.
And even though I achieved multiple levels of black belts, I never felt secure in the fact that I could really pull it off.
Studying one art limits what you hope to accomplish. It’s like trying to create a universal language. Every language has its own expression of its perception of reality. Each martial art is like that. How they see it is clear to them, but they are limited in their thinking.
IKF: So unless you’re the founder of a system, say an Ed Parker or a Kenneth Funakoshi, you are limited with what you can accomplish in the system?
JS: Picture a bicycle wheel. You have the tire, the rim and the spokes. So each one of these masters has a spoke in the wheel of martial arts. So they have that specific truth. But it’s not complete. None of the systems are complete.
What I am doing right now is propagating my art. I am one mind, one person. Picture a funnel and imagine it raining above my head. You have Ed Parker and Victor de Thouars and Paul de Thouars and Bob Vanetta and Wan Kiu and Dr. Ku and Dan Inosanto and master Chai and Larry Hartsell and on and on. They’re raining inside my funnel and it filters down into my mind. And that’s what I use as perspective to attract essential elements to really come up with universal truths.
IKF: Could you ever be content with one art, one teacher?
JS: No, because you must consider the notion that going back to Parker and Funakoshi, they are just one mind. What I need are more minds looking at what I do. They will all add and enrich, contribute the breadth and the depth and perspective going into your mind. They found their truth, but they don’t know THE truth.
IKF: Do you see students blindly following their teachers?
JS: For many students, when you have them replicating what the master does there is no evolution. The problem with people is that when you define an art you kill it. You have to define an art initially only so you can begin refining it. But these people define the art, then they hold onto it forever.
IKF: You seem like a pleasant, well-adjusted individual. Why do you think you rub some martial artists the wrong way?
JS: I challenge their existential foundation. I discarded kenpo after 35 years even though I achieved a 9th-degree black belt. I have been in and around wing chun for 25 years. I have spent decades being sincere, forever the infinite student. I have no problem starting over but it’s just a waste of time if the model is weak. I rattle their existential foundation. They insist on holding onto their ego or rank in the face of the universal truth that their stuff has limitations.
Nobody wants to train in something for 20 years and have me come up to them and say, “That’s really not going to work.” It’s a matter of physics; you don’t have enough time or distance to pull that off. Now, let me show you.” - * I rub people the wrong way because I am forever the student. My idea of winning is not beating someone up or being right. My idea of winning is understanding and I am not sure that is a universal perspective. They’re trapped and the biggest trap of all is the one they don’t know they are in.
- I rub people the wrong way because I hold up a mirror and say, “Look at your art, look at yourself. In the deepest darkest most insecure moment that’s when you know who you are. I’m not trying to hurt you, or disrespect your system or your master.”
- * The people I rub wrong are trying to hold onto something that never was.
IKF: And so you respect tradition without being bound by it?
JS: I am not bound by tradition. I perceive things in terms of motor skills, muscle memory and tool development. That’s the germination behind CAPA (Conceptual Analysis of Practical Application). In effect, ask yourself: What’s the concept, let’s analyze it practically and decide how best you can apply it. I am saying to you, “What you’re doing won’t work and I will show you why.” If that rubs you the wrong way then you re trying to hold onto something that’s antiquated and was fraudulent from the beginning.
IKF: Although you seem to bask in traditionalism, you have no trouble discarding the notion of traditionalism when the situation calls for it.
JS: Yes, of course I respect tradition. It’s the essential element. That is the paradox. Everything I do has a traditional root. But that doesn’t mean it has to be stagnant or chiseled in stone. They were meant to be foundational existential elements that we can build upon as we gather our technology.
IKF: Where do you classify the Slam Set among martial arts discoveries?
JS: We have a modified wing chun dummy and so it’s totally laden with tradition. But the training methods and training methodology that Wang Kiu created off that is definitely 21st century and there’s going to be variations in mook jong as long as people are training in martial arts. The Slam Set in my alphabet of movement. When I finalized 90-percent of the Slam Set, after years being so with so many great wing chun masters, as well as grandmasters from other systems, all the essential elements of arts I was studying was coming out of me. I found pieces of structural elements from several different martial arts systems and different cultures over different centuries based on anatomical superiority that made sense to me.
IKF: You once had a discussion with Wang Kiu regarding siu lim tao. What did he say?
JS: It was in Vancouver, B.C. in 1986. I asked him the meaning siu lum tao or “little idea form.” He said, you plant the seeds in fertile soil, which is a metaphor for a fertile mind, and then you water it, fertilize it, control it, and protect it. It grows and develops roots and a trunk. It eventually matures, branches out blossoms and become fruit, which is the knowledge you can give students.
IKF: Are you disappointed you have never found one art that is everything and all things?
JS: Early on I was. I thought getting a black belt would lead to supreme confidence and functionality. I have long since come to grips with the realization that one language cannot completely express a human being; one instrument cannot express all music; and one philosophy cannot represent all combative perspectives. I have accepted that there is no one complete art. Yet, I am trying to build one, only this is a timeline phase. Whatever I build, people are going to come along and dissect it, add to it and make it their own. Which is the way it always should be. |
