# "By The Book"



## MJS (Oct 30, 2007)

Last night, I was reading thru some posts on another forum.  I came across a discussion on forms.  The poster stated that she was recently reviewing a form with a student, but this student had come from a different lineage, so there were slight differences in the way she was teaching and the way the student had learned it.  She proceeded to ask questions on lineage, forms, etc.  Another member made the comment to, 'teach it the book way.'

So, my question is...what is the book way?  Considering that there are many variation, considering we have many lineages, is there a set way?  I would imagine though, that if per se, someone came from Palanzo and went to Tatum, and there were slight differences (I don't know if there are or not, just using this as an example) that the student would made the necessary changes to suit the org. he/she is with now.

Of course, upon first reading, and maybe I just misread, but I almost got the impression that the person that mentioned doing it by the book, was hinting that his way was "The" way of doing the form.

Thoughts?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2007)

The problem is, that the 'Book' was never meant to be the teacher. The 'Book' was meant to be a reference to a quality teacher. Too often, too many people use the book as a substitute for the high quality teacher. 

In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat. 

On a personal level, I learned the Staff set. When I read the instructions in Rich Hale's copy of 'The Book', the movements I was doing, were sort of accurate to I learned, but not really. I recently spent several days reviewing the Staff set with Mr. Planas. And while he said that there were some "minor changes" that he wanted to see, he totally changed the set on me.

So, the point, for me at least, is that 'The Book' is insufficient. It may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.


----------



## JamesB (Oct 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> In Ed Parker's *American* Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "*the* book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat.


 
Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "*a* book", about Ed Parker's *Kenpo* Karate?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2007)

JamesB said:


> Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "*a* book", about Ed Parker's *Kenpo* Karate?


 
No.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> No.


 
So if Ed Parker performed or taught a form differently than "the book," who is incorrect?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2007)

Blindside said:


> So if Ed Parker performed or taught a form differently than "the book," who is incorrect?


 
Mr. Parker was a high quality martial artist. 

However, there is a video floating about of Mr. Parker doing Short Form 3 that is absolutely horrible. If you find that clip, you will see that he leaves out several techniques from the form. If you learned the form from that performance, you would be incorrect. 

The book is a supplement to a high quality teacher. Hopefully, the teacher understands how, and why, something is supposed to be executed. 

Yes, even Ed Parker could do things wrong.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Oct 30, 2007)

'The Book' is whatever manual you have lying around for students and teachers to reference.

Nothing else matters.  The specifics and minutia of your technique are largely unimportant.  Kenpo isn't about rote memorization..it's about the intelligent application of principals.

Teaching Delayed Sword with a backfist rather than a chop at the end doesn't change the principals.  Neither do small alterations of kata (or even large ones).

What _does_ matter is that the _entire teaching staff_ is united on what they consider the 'right' way to do a technique or form.  Very few things are more frustrating to a student than learning version a, and have a teacher two days later say they're all wrong...it should be version b.

It's important to have 'the book' somewhere in your school.  But it doesn't matter much who's book it is.


----------



## JamesB (Oct 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> No.


 
Why not? explain your position, if you can.


----------



## MJS (Oct 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The problem is, that the 'Book' was never meant to be the teacher. The 'Book' was meant to be a reference to a quality teacher. Too often, too many people use the book as a substitute for the high quality teacher.
> 
> In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, you're right.  IIRC, Doc has said many times that things such as "Big Red" were not designed to be the final say.


----------



## Doc (Oct 30, 2007)

MJS said:


> Yes, you're right.  IIRC, Doc has said many times that things such as "Big Red" were not designed to be the final say.



Yes sir, mostly because for those who have or have seen BIG RED, the first thing you notice is, it doesn't tell you HOW to do anything. That's what teachers are for. Mr. Parker was indeed a genius and drew upon his undersatnding of Comparitive Analysis to create everything logically. While the business plan was solid, its the teachers that provide the 'meat' to the 'bread' of the manual concepts.

The problem here is the business emphasized techniques because that is what 'sold' the art. Parker would rip off a technique spontaneously and people would go, WOW! But in the non commercial world the arts are driven by arguious basics and, what can be boring to beginners, repetitious drills. Teachers taught for retention.

So teachers either lost, or in later years, never had an understanding of basics because they weren't being taught by anyone, not even Parker generally. Everything is conceptually driven. The systems teachers are responsible for whatever it is, or isn't. So if the knowledge of execution is in the hands of its teachers, and they are. And the teachers never learned one way, and there is no 'book' that describes the 'how' of one way, than a suggestion to do it "by the book" is ludcrious.

Even the book with loose descriptions of 'what' to do, never addresses 'how' to do it, therefore it is all instructor interpretations. Artistically, no one is wrong because the system allows and encourages this free from approach for retention and quick satisfaction. The standards are conceptual, and so is the product grading on the 'curve.' Traditional arts don't do this. They set a standard, and instructors make sure everyone adheres to it if they want advancement.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 30, 2007)

MJS said:


> Last night, I was reading thru some posts on another forum. I came across a discussion on forms. The poster stated that she was recently reviewing a form with a student, but this student had come from a different lineage, so there were slight differences in the way she was teaching and the way the student had learned it. She proceeded to ask questions on lineage, forms, etc. Another member made the comment to, 'teach it the book way.'
> 
> So, my question is...what is the book way? Considering that there are many variation, considering we have many lineages, is there a set way? I would imagine though, that if per se, someone came from Palanzo and went to Tatum, and there were slight differences (I don't know if there are or not, just using this as an example) that the student would made the necessary changes to suit the org. he/she is with now.
> 
> ...


There are many different books which use language and connatations specific to the way of thinking of the individual authors; so, to say the differences are slight is a bit of an understatement.
Sean


----------



## Ray (Oct 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> 'The Book' is whatever manual you have lying around for students and teachers to reference.
> ...
> It's important to have 'the book' somewhere in your school. But it doesn't matter much who's book it is.


I think it is fun to visit other schools and see what they do.


----------



## Doc (Oct 30, 2007)

Ray said:


> I think it is fun to visit other schools and see what they do.



I do to, if nothing but to see how they interpret things and how they teach their interpretations.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'.





			
				JamesB said:
			
		

> Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "*a* book", about Ed Parker's *Kenpo* Karate?





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> No.





JamesB said:


> Why not? explain your position, if you can.


 
I'll try. Although, I don't know that this is necessarily "my" position, as much as it is the collective history of the system many of us study. As I mentioned, this information is laid out in 'The Journey'. 

Let's begin with your idea of "a book" and my idea of "the book". 

As I understand it, 

.... studying Kenpo in the late 60's and early 70's in California began in the Basics class. After demonstrating a sufficient measure of proficiency with the Basics, a student was invited into the Technique/Advance class.

During this time period, I'm certain the students were doing many things that have since become formalized in our system. But, the architecture of the system was, perhaps, a bit more loose. 

Mr. Planas tells us that Mr. Parker was approached by a business person with a grand plan to spread the system into Canada (I'm doing this from memory in a hotel room - but it is laid out in The Journey). So, as part of the potential business opportunity and plan, Mr. Parker had Mr. Planas and (I think it was) Mr. Kelley spend a couple of months formalizing and writing out the system. 

Before the plan could unfold, it fell apart. And then, it resurfaced under a different partner and program. And the books that we have, the books of the catalogued system of self-defense that I refer to as Ed Parker's American Kenpo were written by Mr. Planas.

Ed Parker's American Kenpo is a system of self-defense based on rules and principles. The rules and principles are taught in this system through techniques, forms and sets. Those techniques, forms and sets were catalogued in written manuals in the early 70's by Huk Planas and (I think) Tom Kelley. 

I have no doubt by this time, Mr. Parker was able to practice self-defense, utilizing the underlying rules and principles that are the foundation of my system of self-defense in a 'gaseous state' or in a 'spontaneous' form. *HE* didn't really need 'the book' to practice the system. But the book that was written did describe his system.



Now, let me digress into your idea of 'Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate', as compared to my idea of 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo'. 

This argument is perhaps made by someone other than me. I refer to the system I study, as 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo', which is documented in the book I described above. 

As, I understand it ... 

.... that system is what was taught in a group of Ed Parker IKKA schools in Southern California in the 70's and 80's. Mr. Planas tells me he travelled among a series of seven different schools throughout the week, teaching the instructors at those schools the "Ed Parker System". 

Other people use different names to refer to different time periods in Mr. Parkers' career. On those topics, I have little knowlege and no opinion. Some people have modified and added to the foundation laid out in 'The Book' (please don't let this intimate that 'The Book' is 'The System'). Some have changed the name, others haven't.

The one thing that does seem apparent to me, from my personal experience, is that Mr. Planas is very much a stickler for the tradition. He was teaching the system to the owners of the Ed Parker schools in Southern California, every day. And he teaches that material, in the same way, today.

I don't know how Mr. Planas refers to the system. But, I do know he does not call it 'Huk Planas' Karate System'. He is teach what he learned from Ed Parker. 

When I refer to the system of self-defense I study, I try to be careful to use the descriptors 'the system I study, which I call ... '. If someone has a reasonable explanation as to why I shouldn't refer to this system as 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo', I would be willing to listen, and to change my choice of name, if appropriate. 


One last thought ... As Mr. Conaster spelled out in his autobiography in 'The Journey', all of the self-defense study we undertake, brings us to the point of being a 'paper tiger'; able to defend ourselves, but with enough skill and awareness to avoid ever needing to defend ourselves. 

I continue to study in order to exercise my body, and my mind. I am confident that I have acquired skills more than sufficient to protect myself in any open hand conflict I may encounter. But, the process and the exercise is the reward and the challenge. Understanding how 'The System' is assembled, what it teaches us, and how to apply it, is ample material for a lifetime of study. 

I hope this helps you understand my position. 

Mike


----------



## JamesB (Oct 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I hope this helps you understand my position.
> 
> Mike


 
Hi - it does help, thanks for taking the time to reply! I guess the reason I asked the question was because I was under the impression that 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo' was a continuing work-in-progress that was never completed (the widespread kenpo-karate system took over), so it was confusing to see you write that 'the' book had been written... but I got it now, thanks..

james


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2007)

JamesB said:


> ...  I was under the impression that 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo' was a continuing work-in-progress that was never completed ...


 
That would not be my position. 

I recently participated a thread discussion about the often used phrase "make kenpo your own". I posited that the idea of 'tailoring' kenpo was mis-used and misunderstood. 

When I had to create by Black Belt Thesis Form, I had a discussion and private lesson about that with Huk. In that discussion, we reviewed that with human beings having two arms and two legs, there are only so many ways which it is feasible to block, strike, kick and punch. He also stressed that the "Techniques" in the Form should not be the 'Ed Parker American Kenpo' techniques. He said don't just string a handful of existing techniques together, and call that a form. The take away was that I was supposed to 'invent' new techniques for my Thesis.

With each new, invented technique, I ended up with the position, "Well, this technique is like Circling Destruction, BUT with an X instead of a Y". All of the techniques in my Thesis form could have easily been explained with as standard technique meeting the Equation Formulation. Even though I *tried* to create new techniques. 

The one technique in my Thesis Form that was just a bit outside of the modified standard technique idea, was that way because I broke some of the rules. I created the technique knowing it was a violation of the rules ... because sometimes 'The System' teaches us what not to do.

So, James, I do not believe that "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" is a work in progress. I believe it is perhaps a living system. But, the foundation is the 'Rules and Principles of Motion - that everything has an opposite and a reverse'. 

Unless someone creates a new 'Rule or Principle of Motion', I don't think the foundation we have is more than sufficient.


----------



## MJS (Oct 31, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> There are many different books which use language and connatations specific to the way of thinking of the individual authors; so, to say the differences are slight is a bit of an understatement.
> Sean


 
True.  As for the exact differences...I don't know, I wasnt there, nor do I know the people in question.


----------



## MJS (Oct 31, 2007)

Doc said:


> Yes sir, mostly because for those who have or have seen BIG RED, the first thing you notice is, it doesn't tell you HOW to do anything. That's what teachers are for. Mr. Parker was indeed a genius and drew upon his undersatnding of Comparitive Analysis to create everything logically. While the business plan was solid, its the teachers that provide the 'meat' to the 'bread' of the manual concepts.
> 
> The problem here is the business emphasized techniques because that is what 'sold' the art. Parker would rip off a technique spontaneously and people would go, WOW! But in the non commercial world the arts are driven by arguious basics and, what can be boring to beginners, repetitious drills. Teachers taught for retention.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the reply Doc. 

What always amazes me, and maybe I'll just never understand it, I don't know, but IMO, if someone was learning under a teacher, in this case, Mr. Parker, one would think that they'd want to learn the right way.  Why would someone want to learn a system thats watered down, for lack of better words, and pass it along, rather than learn the 'full package?'  

This reminds me of a thread I started a while ago about who is teaching the correct system?  

I don't know...for myself, I like to go by the motto of, "Quality over Quantity."  I'd rather have 30 solid students than 300 poor to average students.


----------



## still learning (Oct 31, 2007)

Hello, This reminds me of the classic case, where you tell one person in line to repeat a one line story....by the end of the line the story has change.

In our Universal Kempo system...it is the same...our top (1st gen) Instrutors....many of them have small changes in variety of Kata's....yet they were  train under the same "Professor". (Branches all over USA)

Many schools have the same Pinon Kata's.....yet is has it own varietions of the suppose to be the same thing!

Ed Parker systems is NO different...each Sensi...remembers things slightly differently as time goes by.....Even Mr Ed Parker cannot remember every single move in every Kata's...as time goes by in his life.

So we are told....if a higher ranking Instrutor (in our system)tells you to do it this way...than we follow his way.  ( Usually at testing we review all the materials to be on the same line during testing).

Aloha, (as each of us past things down the line....a few things will change as time goes by......people forget or do not remember every detail....)

PS: We just have to except what we are taught from the present teacher!


----------



## Doc (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, James, I do not believe that "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" is a work in progress. I believe it is perhaps a living system. But, the foundation is the 'Rules and Principles of Motion - that everything has an opposite and a reverse'.
> 
> Unless someone creates a new 'Rule or Principle of Motion', I don't think the foundation we have is more than sufficient.



First there has to be a recognition of "what" we are speaking of. "American Kenpo" was a work in progress. Ed Parker never attached his name to it, therefore Ed Parker's American Kenpo" may be verbage that some choose to use, but it is incorrect, according to Parker. What we are speaking about that is "motion-based," is "Kenpo Karate," or "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate." He branded this aspect of his art(s) with his name, and no other because this was his commercial vehicle designed from the ground up for "selling" the art first around a sound business plan.

As far as the "rules and principles of motion," nothing could be more vague and open ended. This was intentional by Parker. It is so vague anyone can make anything of it. This is one of the foundations of Kenpo Karate.

It is important to make the distinction because the concept of "Kenpo Karate," which is finished, and its "system," because the system is its motion concept. Not to be confused with its techniques, forms, or sets, the number of each, and under what format they are taught.

American Kenpo is based on non-conceptual principles of anatomical movement and not abstract motion. The distinction between the two is enormous. American Kenpo was Mr. Parker's conversion of, and Americanization of the Chinese Arts he was learning, none of which made it into his commercial vehicle he called "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate."

The term "system" refers to the methodology by which the information is taught or passed on. American Kenpo was to be a strict system, while the "Kenpo Karate" system was abstract motion based, and completely open ended for interpretation from the instructor down to its lowest student, and was considered already "finished" by Ed Parker by Ed Parker at its inception. There may have been additional ideas of different things that could be done to convey the motion ideas, but these ideas are not the system.

In American Kenpo, the methods are the system. In Kenpo Karate the concepts are the system.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2007)

Doc said:


> What we are speaking about that is "motion-based," is "Kenpo Karate," or "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate." He branded this aspect of his art(s) with his name,


 
Perhaps you can direct me to where, and when, Mr. Parker branded this aspect of self-defense with his name? 

Also, if there is a reference to the other areas of self-defense practices where he did not apply his name, that would be helpful too?


----------



## Doc (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Perhaps you can direct me to where, and when, Mr. Parker branded this aspect of self-defense with his name?



If you were to go to the still standing Pasadena school, or had seen the now gone Santa Monica School, you would see or have seen the famous "logo sign" with "Ed Parkers' logo signature" on top of the building, "Ed Parker Karate Studios." This sign was duplicated on Ed Parker's and the business cards of the various associated business "franchise" schools. "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate Studios." Also for those that have seen the "Big Red" Franchise Guide, you will see the same on the cover, as well as the banner on top of every page of material included in the guide, "Ed Parker Karate Studios." Although the word "kenpo" was sometimes omitted from major general advertising because the general public was not familair with the term, in favor of the better known "karate," all business cards and materials represented "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate Studios" branding.

In the sales brochure soliciting school owners for franchise ownership, a picture was included of the Pasadena School and sign, in conjuction with the description, "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate Studios Headquarters." Turn Key Franchise. Earn up to $20,000 a year. It included further decriptions such as; Certified Karate Instructors, Membership I.K.K.A., Management Manual, Instructors Manual, Copyrighted Parker System, Sales Manual, Operations Forms, Accounting System, Site Selection, Lease Negotiations, Companay Training, Company Supervision, Grading System, Office Supplies, etc.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The problem is, that the 'Book' was never meant to be the teacher. The 'Book' was meant to be a reference to a quality teacher. Too often, too many people use the book as a substitute for the high quality teacher.



This is sooooooo true!




michaeledward said:


> In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". .



Now here I respectfully have to disagree.  Yes, Huk did play a major roll (along with his original instructor Tom Kelly) in the initial manual read outs however, there were several 'updates' throughout the '80's that Huk WAS NOT part of and yet are still valid additions or revisions to the 'work in progress'.!  

There were several other individuals that Ed Parker enlisted to give quality  "feedback" on concerning these written supplements/references to training, which in turn resulted in many improvements and clarifications to said material.  Also at that time.... there was not a media to disburse all these new adjustments to everyone in the system.  So there *are* several 'versions' out there.

It's funny but written or not.... many overlook or just flat ignore much of this material.  If you read the Infinite Insights you'll find a ton of material that Ed Parker found very important or valuable yet when talking to many kenpoists...... they have no clue or 'did not realize' this or that was in the system.  I find that fascinating.

Goldendragon
:asian:


----------



## Doc (Nov 1, 2007)

Goldendragon7 said:


> This is sooooooo true!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'Bout time you showed up.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2007)

Goldendragon7 said:


> This is sooooooo true!
> 
> Now here I respectfully have to disagree. Yes, Huk did play a major roll (along with his original instructor Tom Kelly) in the initial manual read outs however, there were several 'updates' throughout the '80's that Huk WAS NOT part of and yet are still valid additions or revisions to the 'work in progress'.!
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for your insights ... and, you are missed around here, you know. 

A question for you, Mr. C. 

Can you suggest some of the ideas from that period of Huk's exile that offered a substantive change or improvement from what was occuring when he and Mr. Kelley worked on the original manuals? 





I'm curious, because I believe that there are two factors in many of the updates from that period. 

The first factor may be in different methods of presenting material. I am a professional trainer, and I am always seeking new ways to present material so that it has meaning to students, and that different students are able to assimilate in an appropriate manner. But a change in method does not necessarily mean a change in foundation material.

The second factor, sadly, might be politics. The political machinations in the realm of self-defense are prevasive. I believe person running a small business (as all studio owners do), require personalities with strong, well developed ego. I believe a person who is attempting to spread an idea among those types of persons, would do well to humble himself before those egos. 

We have read often enough on this, and other boards, about how Mr. Parker allowed his senior pupils to adapt and change and flex and bend his material. This unselfish act of ego-feeding could be seen as a political act.

Certainly, I wasn't there, so I don't know. And, at this point in my training, I am working to understand the material as presented by Huk. He's a bit of a crumudgeon, and a stickler for the way it was. But also he is a stickler for effective and correct mechanics. If I can get to the point where he is satisified with my execution, maybe I can begin to branch out. 

He has told me often enough, there are only so many ways one can block, strike, kick and punch. 

Good to see you back. 

Mike


----------



## Doc (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> He has told me often enough, there are only so many ways one can block, strike, kick and punch.



And even fewer to punch, kick, and block anatomically correct.


----------



## kenpogary (Nov 28, 2007)

The book. 
I have heard this discussion far too many times and I believe everyone has a different opinion of it. As I understand it should be used as guidelines for us to keep kenpo as close to the book as possible. But it is not set in stone. Everyone has different limitations and abilitys that they may need to modify slightly. I believe, and this is only my opinion, that we should try to stay as close to the writings as possible and not change it slightly and say we wrote it. Mr. Parker created American Kenpo. He is the *Senior Grand Master* and I believe no one should ever use that title. It is *his* title and in my book this always will be. Grand Master is one thing but he is the only Senior Grandmaster in American Kenpo Karate. He wrote the book and I will do my best to follow it as close as I can with the use of all black belts that studied directly from him that are legitimate 1st generation black belts under Parker. I think keeping unity in American Kenpo is so very important. Every school has some modifications to the system and that is all they are is modifications. Bottom line is look at the technique, form, set etc. If it resembles Ed Parkers creation, then thats because it is. You did not create it. You modified it for your personal preference. Now it is no longer by the book. Here is the problem. If we all change techniques and it no longer resembles the book then a student that did not learn by the book, reads the book, it will not make sense and as time goes on the system will die and no one in the next few generations will know what is Parker material and what is not. It is like a rare bird. If we dont mate them they will become extinct and soon they are gone and can not be brought back. Same thing if it keeps getting changed it will soon be lost forever. Face it, we have about another 40 years max and after that there will be little, if any real 1st generation Ed Parker black belts and if we dont continue to try to keep it as close as we can it will be gone and lost forever. That would truly be a shame. His legacy needs to live on in all of us that train in his system if we want to still call it his system we need to not change the material. I dont want that to happen and it wont happen at my school. Sure, I have changed the sequence of techniques, mainly as to the number for each belt. That is only because I have a commercial school and in order to stay in business people want to progress fast. To comply, there are not as many techniques per belt and ½ ranks to creative more belts to feel the progression but the material is still as close to the book as I can make it. This way I can keep the doors open and most schools now are 90% children. That is another problem. They see kids at other schools making black belt in two or three years. We all know that is not possible in this system so we have to keep them motivated. If we dont and they quit, we have ruined them as now they did not get the chance to make it to black belt as it was too difficult. Anyone training from me is getting the techniques, forms and sets as close as I can to the book, with the information I have and the training I have. I am lucky. I have some wonderful senior teachers/masters to look up to at my school not to mention those out of state that visit often and were very close to the old man. Anyone that sticks it out at my school will learn all the techniques, forms, sets, principal and concepts of the entire system up through 5th black. If they dont stay with it, at least they have a solid foundation if they come back later. If they go to another Ed Parkers school, they will know what they are doing, why they are doing it and understand why American Kenpo should be kept as close to the book as possible and be able to continue their training where they left off or very close to it. Most schools write their own book as to how their school teaches the system. I do and I believe that is fine. Just dont modify the techniques, forms and sets because you want to call them yours as they will never be yours, they will always be just the way you changed the technique, which again is just another modification and any black belt could do that. So as far as Ed Parkers book, please let us all try to keep it as close as we can to what is written, so if one of my students move away and call your school to continue his training and visa versa. The art of Ed Parkers American Kenpo Karate can grow and not just fade away. I am not saying the book is perfect. It is not a teacher, it is a guideline and nothing more. I believe it is a guideline that if we follow as close as we can to what we are taught by the original students of the Ed Parker, then we can all be fairly close and keep the art somewhat intact. Lets face it; we will never, ever be exactly the same at every school. It does give us the opportunity to keep it close. 
I have sat in on plenty of tests at numerous schools and it is definitely apparent that it is different from school to school. But if we can all get in a technique line and bang out techniques and are all moving with the same motion and continuity, then it works, right? The closer we all are to being on the same page then the more intact I believe the Ed Parkers American Kenpo Karate system being will remain. Lets keep the Kenpo Brotherhood alive. 
Thats my opinion. 
Gary Wilson
American Family Kenpo Karate
San Diego, Ca


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Nov 28, 2007)

Of what book do you speak Mr. Wilson? Big Red? IIs? The notes posted by Ed Parker Jr.? And what legitament 1st gen should I follow, as each one will have marked differences and similatities? Don't mean to stir the pot, but isn't that the gist of this thread? That "The Book" is as flexible or inflexable as one is willing to make it?


----------



## kenpogary (Nov 29, 2007)

LOL,

Yes you are correct as to one first generation to the next there are definite deferents.  But all are very similar.  I know there is no way possible to have it exact as everyone seems to have been shown differently and I think that has to do with where you were and how accessible you were to Parker back then.   If you were at the Pasadena School and trained there and taught there often I tend to believe you would more than likely be the closest.  But on the other hand he had a lot of schools from my understand convert from one system to his.  There for I would believe that they would be taught to be as close as they could but with different variations which I have seen.  Not to say if you were not in Pasadena you did not learn the true and complete system and as you say it who is the truest to what he wanted before he passed away.  There were so many changes over the years.  But most first generations that I have trained from are very similar in each and every technique.  To me that is close enough.  Any of the ones that I have worked with could get in a line crank out techniques on each other with minor deferents and it works.  Bottom line is which one is correct.  I think they all work and each and everyone one of them will make 
it work.

As far as the book we mainly use the latest ones that came out after his passing.  There are deferents but we compare with the red book also.  Over and above all that I trust my teachers knowledge in the end.  But 90% I believe is very close.  And like I said just my opinion for what it is worth.  Just like to see Parkers system stay intact as close as we can.   And continue the brotherhood.


----------

