# GM Ed Parkers American Kenpo - Looking for Feedback



## HKphooey (Aug 29, 2006)

GM Ed Parkers American Kenpo?

Since I have joined MT I have read several threads on how

· GM Parker created Motion Kenpo for marketing purposes.  
· That much of what he taught was not the base/technical aspects of the art or kept within a small group of his black belts. 
· The belt system was lessened to help progress students more quickly and once again for marketing purposes.
· He did not want people to change the art or one teachers methods are incorrect.
· Anyone who left him was a traitor. 
· Who was the true heir to the kenpo throne?
· He did not want techniques on tape because it would freeze them in time.
· He gave some material to some and not others for a reason.
· Many of the forms/sets were not his own and were not part of the true art.

I had also read/heard some of these same discussions on other forums and at seminars before joining MT.

I have been training in Kenpo (Parker, Tracy, Hybrids, Kempo) for over 18 years.  I never had the pleasure of participating in a GM Parker seminar.  I have had a chance to see numerous ones on tape.  I have read all the books written by GM Parker and many of his students.  I have attended seminars of his black belts.  Everything I have ever read or heard of GM Parker lead me to believe he originally created his kenpo because he wanted more practical martial art for the modern times.  He wanted to strip out the BS material from traditional karate.  I have the greatest respect for GM Parker, all his black belts and anyone who has an open mind to continue his legacy.  I am not addressing any particular threads or individuals, just the overall beliefs.  Many of my thoughts may be read as challenges to other peoples opinions; they are not.  I have no right to do that.  My goal is to hear other peoples theories as to why GM Parker made some of the choices he did.  I just find it confusing to read information printed before his death, get so contradicted (in good and bad ways) by writings after his death.  

So with all this said, I re-read many threads and pondered the following


Based on GM Parker breaking away form his teachers to start a new form of kenpo, wouldnt that fit the same profile of McDojo we read some much about on MT?  He had not trained in his original style long enough to know every aspect of his training.  Did he break away too early before is teachers gave him all the secrets and theories?  So why then, when someone on this forum or in the kenpo community decides to eliminate or change the system, they are looked down upon negatively?  (And I am not talking about someone with 7-10 years training and no true understanding of the art, I am speaking of some of his top students who have ripped apart them system).  How are they any different from GM Parker?
Why would someone change the traditional martial art he was studying and then completely change a system he had worked so hard to create (and break away from the traditionalist elders) to create a system designed to sell?  That would go against all his principles.  I guess it will always be about money.  No matter how hard you try, unless you are teaching for free, it will be about money.  And once again, why are so many trashed for marketing their schools, their seminars, their tapes, etc.
Why would so much emphasis be placed on Form 4, the signature form, but yet it is impractical?  At that level, a student was very committed to the Parker system and proved they wanted to be in it for the long haul.  Why would GM Parker teach them something that was commercial or Motion based?  Why would he waste so much time teaching the forms or sets if he did not believe in them.
Based on kenpo history, GM Parker put way too much blood, sweat and tears in to his labor of love and philosophies, to changes things to please students.  Or were we all hoodwinked?  I like to think not.  I like to think we each walk away from his teachings with different opinions, outlooks and theories.  I think he did teach certain aspects of the art to some individuals and not others, but for a reason  to make us dependant on each other, not independent or enemies.
Many top students were named as protégée, only later to be shunned for their beliefs or so called mutiny.  Why would anything about their training change after they left GM Parker?  If they had all the material and understanding, would all that magically disappear when they left GM parker? Wasnt his wish, to have students take the art and make it their own?  And if they were not named as a protégé does that mean they were not qualified to carry the flame after his death?  I like to think many of those are more than qualified. 
If he did not want to put material on tape because he thought it would freeze the techniques in time or teach the student to be confined to rules, why would a technique only have one correct way of doing it?  Many times I hear that is not the way GM Parker taught it.  I thought were supposed to adapt our kenpo to our bodies and situations - not freeze it in time.
Many talk of practical training and dismiss sparring or certain training methods, but still work out with gis and bare feet (including me).  
Please view these questions as a parent would when asked a question by a child.   Pure curiosity of why things are?

I have learned so much from numerous teachers and students.  I have even learned a lot on this forum from people I never met or knew their credentials.  I never judged the material until I tried it over and over again.  I think we all have a lot to learn from anyone who ever trained with GM Parker. I have heard the phrase kenpo brotherhood and I like to think of my training and friends as just that.

Sorry for the book (and any crappy grammar). I would love to hear anyones thoughts on this.  I am trying to gain some insight into others views GM Parkers life and dedication to kenpo.

Thanks in advance.
:asian:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2006)

I posted a nearly identically themed thread on KenpoNet.  It was interesting to say the least.

Anyway here goes my thoughts.

1) There is no difference.  Parker left Chow and no one has issue with it.  People left Parker and they were traitors.  This is cult mentallity and people remaining blindly loyal instead of thinking.

2) The kenpo system while viable is also commerical.  If not there would be little need for the ad campaigns, commercials, exposing the kenpo crest during concerts and movies, etc.  Also the material repeats itself constantly throughout the system (more so than the other systems I've studied).  This is what is called "padding" in some marketing circles.  Look at Blocking Set II as an example.  Is there anything in that set that you haven't done at least 3 times before learning that set?  That's why some consider it filler material.

3) Though I wouldn't go as far as saying that form 4 is impractical there are some basic rules of physics and combat tactics broken throughout the form.  That's why the forms are refered to as "serving the purpose of exploring the rules and principles of motion, not representing an imaginary fight.  If they were an imaginary fight we'd be laid out by the 4th move. look at the transition between Unfurling Crane and Destructive Kneel.  Retreating without angling off of the line of attack, circling the hands away from the incoming punch before returning to pick it up while crossing the punch's path of travel, opening the centerline with the step into the twist stance.  All of these problems are shown again in form 5 but addressed properly.  Though I was taught stuff like that is in the forms intentionally to make you think about it and see the correction later, that doesn't change the fact that they are there.

4) Unfortunately I'd be inclined to think that a few things were changed for the students as Mr. Parker taught karate to provide for his family.  This offers the possibility and probability that certain things had to be changed to keep students around and encourage new students to pay the bills.  That's the downfall of teaching karate for money.  The customer is always right so they say....

5) Yeah this is ridiculous.  People trained with Mr. Parker for 20 years or so and were considered great martial artists.  Then they leave him and over night they're instant phoneys and White Belts pretending to be Black Belts.  I didn't realize that skill was dependant on someone constantly telling the public that you had it, and that when you stop telling the public about it the skill disappears.  Who knew?....

6) There is no one way to do anything Mr. Parker taught.  I have hours upon hours of footage of Mr. Parker teaching and executing moves and forms.  They are all a little different.  Heck I've cataloged 5 diferent versions of his Thudering Hammers alone.  This is just people trying to attain some level of superiority over overs by claiming to have "the only official method".  Commercialism and ego, nothing more nothing less.

7) Gi's and bare feet aren't necessarily impractical.  I'd rather have my Gi ripped than my work suits.  But yeah people dismiss drills and sparring all the time.  Though I dismiss point sparring I regularly engage in other forms of sparring (closer to MMA style sparring since my group also does Ju Jitsu).  It all boils down to people wanting the results of the "masters of the past" without the work that got them there.  It's the whole everything is to come to me faster, better and sooner mentality.  Kind of like a "have it your way" drive through karate.

*Random side note:* I noticed alot of references to "motion kenpo' in your post So I'll go out on this very short limb abd assume that that was spawned by Doc's comments.  The challenge is this: find a Parker Kenpo instructor that does not 1) Teach using the phrase "principles of motion, 2) Comment on other's "movement" or 3) Show technique variations based on different movement.  The next challenge is to find a Parker book, interview or seminar tape that doesn't excessively mention "rules and principles of motion" Happy hunting


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 29, 2006)

Thanks!!!! :asian:   I really appreciate the feedback/thoughts.

I should get over to KenpoNet and read some of those posts.

In regards to your side note:
I used the phrase "Motion Kenpo" because it is the only term I have seen and heard used to describe the "commercial" kenpo.  My comments in this post were in my head way before I had the pleasure of conversing with Doc on this forum.  He has some great feedback.  And, as with anyone on this forum, I take feedback to heart and try it.  I may not always agree with the person, but I will respect their opinions as long as they repect mine (and most of the time even if they don't ).


----------



## IWishToLearn (Aug 29, 2006)

Accidentally posted in wrong area, see message below. 

(I figured out how to edit it.)


----------



## IWishToLearn (Aug 29, 2006)

Hah, sorry, I thought I was responding to the Kenpo DVD's thread. Please disregard my response here - I came back & found I couldn't delete it.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2006)

> Based on GM Parker breaking away form his teachers to start a new form of kenpo, wouldn&#8217;t that fit the same profile of &#8220;McDojo&#8221; we read some much about on MT?


 
If someone were to start an MA school with NO fighting experience whatsoever, we would all laugh our heads off.  Yet, someone starting an MA school with NO business experience whatsoever seems to be the norm.  I have yet to find a black belt program or a leadership training program that demands that a BB demonstrates sound competency in business.  Yet our art as well as many others is highly depenent on how people with little business knowledge run a business. THAT to me is the biggest harm caused by "McDojos", not whether someone has "all the secrets."






> He had not trained in his original style long enough to know every aspect of his training. Did he break away too early before is teachers gave him all the secrets and theories? So why then, when someone on this forum or in the kenpo community decides to eliminate or change the system, they are looked down upon negatively? (And I am not talking about someone with 7-10 years training and no true understanding of the art, I am speaking of some of his top students who have ripped apart them system). How are they any different from GM Parker?


 
Personally, I want to train under an instructor that still considers himself/herself to be a student.

Anytime change and Kenpo are mentioned in the same post, the textbook response seems to be "Mr. Parker changed things" for those wanting to justify the change and "That's not the way Mr. Parker did it" for those wanting to condemn the change.

Perhaps it's also a matter of trust in the person that makes the change.  Learning Mr. Parker's Kenpo takes a lot of effort, and those that practice it probably don't want to see the art he put his name on get weakened or diluted.  There seems to be less agida over those that change the art and call it something different, whether that person is someone like Mr. Tatum who created Larry Tatum's Kenpo, or the not-so-well-known folks like the ones at my old school that simply called the art "Kenpo" with no further qualifiers.



> "Why would someone change the traditional martial art he was studying and then completely change a system he had worked so hard to create (and break away from the traditionalist elders) to create a system designed to sell? That would go against all his principles. I guess it will always be about money. No matter how hard you try, unless you are teaching for free, it will be about money. And once again, why are so many trashed for marketing their schools, their seminars, their tapes, etc.


 
The issue isn't money, IMO.  It's about school owners being too incompetent in business to sell what they have while retaining the value of their product, so they resort to diluting it.  

I think I'm going to send Bob an article on this subject. 



> Why would so much emphasis be placed on Form 4, the signature form, but yet it is impractical? At that level, a student was very committed to the Parker system and proved they wanted to be in it for the long haul. Why would GM Parker teach them something that was commercial or &#8220;Motion&#8221; based? Why would he waste so much time teaching the forms or &#8220;sets&#8221; if he did not believe in them.


 
Mr. Parker did a lot of things that were a nod to traditions, and forms are one of them.  Kata is, after all, the oldest and most time-honored way of transmitting martial arts knowledge from instructor to student.

Forms 1 through 4 catalogue the system of Kenpo.  As shown in the other belt levels, the techniques are generally designed to be the application of the moves.   Once the student completes Form 4, s/he will have hopefully mastered the entire catalog of Kenpo moves and hopefully have a worthy set of techs to match.



> Based on kenpo history, GM Parker put way too much blood, sweat and tears in to his labor of love and philosophies, to changes things to please students. Or were we all hoodwinked? I like to think not. I like to think we each walk away from his teachings with different opinions, outlooks and theories. I think he did teach certain aspects of the art to some individuals and not others, but for a reason &#8211; to make us dependant on each other, not independent or enemies.


 
HKPhooey, if you and I were to ever square off on the mat, one of the reason for tailoring Kenpo would be obvious.  I'm 5' 2", you are an easy 18 inches taller.   What works for me won't work for you and vice versa.

Tailoring goes beyond adjusting for body size.  I'd hate to join an EPAK school expecting EPAK and instead getting a hacked up or blended version of the art.   I'm not saying that other versions are a bad thing or not worth learning.  It comes back to business skills.  A critical tenet to good business is properly setting and managing the customer's expectations.  

I think there is a lot to be said about working with each other and working together.  




> Many top students were named as prot&#233;g&#233;e, only later to be shunned for their beliefs or so called &#8220;mutiny&#8221;. Why would anything about their training change after they left GM Parker? If they had all the material and understanding, would all that magically disappear when they left GM parker? Wasn&#8217;t his wish, to have students take the art and make it their own? And if they were not named as a prot&#233;g&#233; does that mean they were not qualified to carry the flame after his death? I like to think many of those are more than qualified.




There are a lot of very well qualified people in Kenpo, and personally I don't get a lot of the arguments about who is better than whom.   To me, the most effective training in Kenpo is one that best fits the student's needs, interests, and goals.  

While I personally do not want to sacrifice my engineering career for my Kenpo, I do nonetheless take my training seriously.  However, my learning style is very slow and kinesthetic.  I will bend over backwards to not be a disruption in class, but at the same time I expect to have similar opportunities to learn as everyone else in class.  The real-time reaction that I have received to my quirky learning style has been all over the map.  Some students and instructors are indifferent.  Others seek to change my learning style.  The few that want to actually work with it instead of against it are in the minority.

If a teacher, and/or the class is not tolerant, effective, or patient with me then it doesn't matter how many degrees of black they have earned or what their reputation is or how loyal they were to Mr. Parker...they are not the right instructor or the right school for me.  

With so many complex factors going in to a decision, how can there be one "best" ?  Doc Chapel said something like the best instructor is...yours, unless you discover otherwise.  That's a lot of bests, innit?  



> If he did not want to put material on tape because he thought it would freeze the techniques in time or teach the student to be confined to rules, why would a technique only have one correct way of doing it? Many times I hear that is not the way GM Parker taught it. I thought were supposed to adapt &#8220;our kenpo&#8221; to our bodies and situations - not freeze it in time.


 
ROI may not have been there either for such an extensive project.  The business climate for videos when Mr. Parker was alive is not what it is now.  Videos in the 80s were largely VHS rentals.  While there were instructional videos weren't unheard of, they were largely not very popular.  The thrust of the internet, including newer digital technology and the ability to mass-propogate digital samples of what may be on a video as a sample, was crucial to making videos as something worth the investment. 



> Many talk of practical training and dismiss sparring or certain training methods, but still work out with gis and bare feet (including me).


 
A student that trains in a potentially deadly art must posess a certain amount of analytical skills, and an instructor should not teach a deadly art to a student that does not have such capacity. It is up to the instructor to help a student unlock the reason behind why something is done, and it is up to the student to work to find value in it.  

If a student is not capable of making an independent decision, that student will likely do poorly in a "real fight" situation regardless of training.

Personally, I appreciate a bit of structure to the class, and find wearing a gi of some sort helps to focus my mind for an extended period of time.  A "real fight" may last less than a minute.  A "real class" lasts for an hour or more.  

Outside of class is a different story.  When practicing in my apartment or when working out with a training buddy, I usually wear street clothes.  I have also worn street clothes to private lessons on occasion.  While I clear it with the instructor ahead of time as a courtesy, I have yet to meet an instructor who has turned down my request.  In more than one occasion, the instructor himself has worn street clothes as well.

Same with sparring.  Going back to the business concepts of setting expectations properly, and not leave the student with the impression that sparring = a real fight.  At the same time, the student must posess sufficient analytics and judgement to draw an independent conclusion from the situation.  An instructor will not be around to spoonfeed a student in a live situation.

Just my thoughts though.   Still costs me $2.50 for coffee at Dunkins.


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 30, 2006)

Thank you for your thoughts Carol!

:asian:


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Thank you for your thoughts Carol!
> 
> :asian:


 
You know a lot more than I do, HKF.  I just hope that you correct me if I'm way off base.  :asian:


----------



## pete (Aug 30, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> There seems to be less agida over those that change the art and call it something different, whether that person is someone like Mr. Tatum who created Larry Tatum's Kenpo, or the not-so-well-known folks like the ones at my old school that simply called the art "Kenpo" with no further qualifiers.


 Larry Tatum teaches pure Ed Parker American Kenpo.


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 30, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> You know a lot more than I do, HKF. I just hope that you correct me if I'm way off base. :asian:


 
Was not looking for a correct or incorrect answer, just peoples' thoughts.   Thanks again.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 30, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> Larry Tatum teaches pure Ed Parker American Kenpo.


 
All depends on who you ask, this like so many other things kenpo is always up for debate....

What exactly is pure anyway? Seems that each senior teaching Parker's kenpo is doing it a bit different. So who has the "Pure" version? And for that matter who has the converse "tainted" version.

Another age-old kenpo discussion....


----------



## JamesB (Aug 30, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> Larry Tatum teaches pure Ed Parker American Kenpo.


 
According to his website and videos, Larry Tatum teaches 'Larry Tatum Kenpo Karate'.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> If someone were to start an MA school with NO fighting experience whatsoever, we would all laugh our heads off. Yet, someone starting an MA school with NO business experience whatsoever seems to be the norm. I have yet to find a black belt program or a leadership training program that demands that a BB demonstrates sound competency in business. Yet our art as well as many others is highly depenent on how people with little business knowledge run a business. THAT to me is the biggest harm caused by "McDojos", not whether someone has "all the secrets."
> 
> The issue isn't money, IMO. It's about school owners being too incompetent in business to sell what they have while retaining the value of their product, so they resort to diluting it.
> 
> ROI may not have been there either for such an extensive project. The business climate for videos when Mr. Parker was alive is not what it is now. Videos in the 80s were largely VHS rentals. While there were instructional videos weren't unheard of, they were largely not very popular. The thrust of the internet, including newer digital technology and the ability to mass-propogate digital samples of what may be on a video as a sample, was crucial to making videos as something worth the investment.


 
Carol, you have hit upon something that I believe is a real problem in the martial arts.  

But my issue isn't with incompetent business practices so much as it is the whole mixture of martial arts and business in the first place.  I think that in many ways, the two just do not mix well, no matter what.

Now I certainly understand that the business of martial arts is here to stay, and the availability of commercial schools are what enable many of us to train who would otherwise never have the opportunity.  I also fall into that category so I cannot jump up and down on it too freely.  But I do believe that it is very difficult to run a martial arts school as a business, and maintain the quality of what is being taught.

I think that to automatically tie martial arts instruction with learning to run a business assumes that every black belt will want to do this, and that's just not true.  Earning a black belt doesn't necessarily need to include business education.  What is learned in the dojo should be martial arts.  If one wants to open a school, then they can choose to get business education, or work with the owner of a successful school to learn how to do it.

But getting back to my main point here, with regard to this discussion.  I never knew much about Mr. Parker.  It wasn't until I joined Martial Talk that I began to see suggestions that Mr. Parker created a business enterprise to teach martial arts, and that sometimes meant what got taught might have been somehow "lacking".  Prior to this, I had always just assumed that his students studied under him, and he gave them the goods, and if he gave them rank, that was it.  But posts here on MT hint that that was not always the case, and many decisions, including decisions about giving rank, were made with a focus on how it would affect the business.  In short, people were waived in to the next level so they could open another school and generate revenue and income, or to keep them happy and keep them coming back and paying fees.  

To me, if this is really what happened, it was a disservice to the arts.  It has caused a lot of confusion and even in-fighting among those who teach, and those who wish to learn.  And it really comes back to the business of martial arts.  If he hadn't made it his livlihood, and had instead taught fewer people and insisted on high standards, maybe these problems would not exist today, and there would be fewer questions about legitimacy and quality of what people are doing and teaching.  But of course the downside is that fewer people today would be training in his art, or one of the many derivitives that have developed from it.

So in short, I personally think the answer is not so much in teachers getting a proper business training, but rather separating the business from the martial arts.  While some commercial schools do a good job, I believe that overall quality would be much higher if teachers taught trusted students out of love for the art, rather than love of a paycheck.  The price to the students, however, is that fewer of them would have the opportunity to learn.  It's a very unfortunate dillema and I don't have the answer to it.  But I think we can acknowledge that Mr. Parker fed the beast, and his legacy is certainly alive and well today.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Carol, you have hit upon something that I believe is a real problem in the martial arts..........But I think we can acknowledge that Mr. Parker fed the beast, and his legacy is certainly alive and well today.


 
And along comes Michael "Crane" to ruin another thread 

Just kidding as always..good post..good points. Exactly why I teach for free.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Exactly why I teach for free.


 
I did not know that, and I respect what you are doing tremendously.

I don't see anything wrong with collecting a fee, esp. if it is geared toward covering costs of training, such as space rental and equipment.  It is when the focus is on profit, above training costs, esp. as a primary source of income, that we enter dangerous waters.  Moving the focus away from profit mandates that a teacher has to have a day job as well.  More burdensome in many ways, but it could be liberating in others.  A teacher can pick and choose his students, accepting only those he feels have the right attitude in training.  This includes rejecting those he does not wish to teach for whatever reason, without worrying about putting food on the table; and you know he is teaching out of passion for the art.  

Business by its very nature, is all about money.  Not everything mixes well with money.  I believe the martial arts is one thing that just doesn't mix well with money, regardless of how many people do it.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I did not know that, and I respect what you are doing tremendously.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with collecting a fee, esp. if it is geared toward covering costs of training, such as space rental and equipment. It is when the focus is on profit, above training costs, esp. as a primary source of income, that we enter dangerous waters. Moving the focus away from profit mandates that a teacher has to have a day job as well. More burdensome in many ways, but it could be liberating in others. A teacher can pick and choose his students, accepting only those he feels have the right attitude in training. This includes rejecting those he does not wish to teach for whatever reason, without worrying about putting food on the table; and you know he is teaching out of passion for the art.
> 
> Business by its very nature, is all about money. Not everything mixes well with money. I believe the martial arts is one thing that just doesn't mix well with money, regardless of how many people do it.


 
Man. Nail on the head again. But no more rep points for you today. I have to "spread some more around first" LOL. Not that you don't already have more than enough


----------



## RichK (Aug 30, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> Larry Tatum teaches pure Ed Parker American Kenpo.



Purity comes only when pure knuckles meet pure flesh


----------



## MJS (Aug 30, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> All depends on who you ask, this like so many other things kenpo is always up for debate....
> 
> What exactly is pure anyway? Seems that each senior teaching Parker's kenpo is doing it a bit different. So who has the "Pure" version? And for that matter who has the converse "tainted" version.
> 
> Another age-old kenpo discussion....


 
As a reference, we can look at this thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35674

A number of pages and I don't think I saw a final answer.  So...that being said, you're correct, it all depends on who you ask! 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Based on GM Parker breaking away form his teachers to start a new form of kenpo, wouldnt that fit the same profile of McDojo we read some much about on MT? He had not trained in his original style long enough to know every aspect of his training. Did he break away too early before is teachers gave him all the secrets and theories? So why then, when someone on this forum or in the kenpo community decides to eliminate or change the system, they are looked down upon negatively? (And I am not talking about someone with 7-10 years training and no true understanding of the art, I am speaking of some of his top students who have ripped apart them system). How are they any different from GM Parker?




Upon first look, it does appear that they'd be the same, but I feel that he has much more knowledge than your typical McDojo.  Why are people ripped apart?  Some think that we're all robots, that we all move alike and should do the same thing, however, Parker seemed to stress to people to tailor the art to themselves, not themselves to the art.




> Why would someone change the traditional martial art he was studying and then completely change a system he had worked so hard to create (and break away from the traditionalist elders) to create a system designed to sell? That would go against all his principles. I guess it will always be about money. No matter how hard you try, unless you are teaching for free, it will be about money. And once again, why are so many trashed for marketing their schools, their seminars, their tapes, etc.



Just because someone teaches for money, does not mean that thats all they're in it for.  I can think of a few schools in the area that charge, but also turn out some damn good students.





> Why would so much emphasis be placed on Form 4, the signature form, but yet it is impractical? At that level, a student was very committed to the Parker system and proved they wanted to be in it for the long haul. Why would GM Parker teach them something that was commercial or Motion based? Why would he waste so much time teaching the forms or sets if he did not believe in them.



          IMO, the SL4 movements vs. the motion movements are different, so I can only assume that would be one reason.  I only know of one person doing SL4, so that leads me to think that the motion schools are doing the forms, and find them practical.






> Based on kenpo history, GM Parker put way too much blood, sweat and tears in to his labor of love and philosophies, to changes things to please students. Or were we all hoodwinked? I like to think not. I like to think we each walk away from his teachings with different opinions, outlooks and theories. I think he did teach certain aspects of the art to some individuals and not others, but for a reason  to make us dependant on each other, not independent or enemies.



Agreed.





> Many top students were named as protégée, only later to be shunned for their beliefs or so called mutiny. Why would anything about their training change after they left GM Parker? If they had all the material and understanding, would all that magically disappear when they left GM parker? Wasnt his wish, to have students take the art and make it their own? And if they were not named as a protégé does that mean they were not qualified to carry the flame after his death? I like to think many of those are more than qualified.



Agreed.  There are many out there, teaching the art, basically adding in their own 'special' touch.  





> If he did not want to put material on tape because he thought it would freeze the techniques in time or teach the student to be confined to rules, why would a technique only have one correct way of doing it? Many times I hear that is not the way GM Parker taught it. I thought were supposed to adapt our kenpo to our bodies and situations - not freeze it in time.



Agreed.  Some seem to forget about that tailoring.




> Many talk of practical training and dismiss sparring or certain training methods, but still work out with gis and bare feet (including me).



I don't see anything wrong with wearing a gi and going bare foot, although I do feel that we should train in street clothes and shoes to get that 'different' feel.

Great thread!! 

Mike


----------



## Doc (Aug 31, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> According to his website and videos, Larry Tatum teaches 'Larry Tatum Kenpo Karate'.



LTKKA - "Larry Tatum Kenpo Karate," Assn.


----------



## Carol (Aug 31, 2006)

I regret drawing such an example in my post, since there has been more attention drawn to my reference to Mr. Tatum's Kenpo than there has been at answering the questions that Wayne pondered in his original post. 

To clarify, in my mind was a comment from Mr. Hale that he made on MT in this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36509&page=2



			
				Rich Hale said:
			
		

> Ed Parker's Kenpo is an art that carries the artists name, so who are we to change it? That's like saying I'd like to take the Mona Lisa off the wall and rework the smile to show a little more teeth.
> 
> If you want to change Ed Parker's Kenpo into something you like better do what Doc has done with SL4, or what Larry has done with Larry Tatum's Kenpo.
> 
> ...


 
It was not my intention to put Mr. Tatum's Kenpo in any kind of glare, I was citing it as an example of a Kenpo instructor who is not using Mr. Parker's name for his Kenpo.

I apologize for any confusion I created, and I hope Mr. Hale won't take offense for me referencing his words the way I did. 

Mike, I'm glad I'm not the only second-shift Kenpoist on MT :roflmao:


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Mike, I'm glad I'm not the only second-shift Kenpoist on MT :roflmao:


 
Hey, now theres an idea....The American 2nd Shift Kenpo Karate Assoc.:lol:


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 31, 2006)

Some of my questions/thoughts may seem to be directed at specific individuals, but they are not.  They are directed to thoughts and ideas of many.  I purposely did not mention SL4 in my post.  I have heard many others not teach Form 4.  I will be the first person to say the material can be better understood on a technique by technique basis.  Just like most other styles, the katas can be used to help memorize the material.  Just like a kid singing the alphabet. Does the child know how to use each letter in a word or a sentence?  Maybe yes, maybe no.

I used the term "motion" kenpo beacause that seems to be the norm here on MT.  Mr Nackford and many other use the term "motion" in their marketing.  Makes sense since GM Parker was the Master of Motion, Magician in Motion, etc.  

I took questions/statments and the answers I found on MT and other forums and tried to roll into one post.  All the questions/aswers are not necessarily my beliefs.

My goal was to hear about peoples' experiences with GM Parker and any others in the kenpo community, not to pass judgement on anyone's beliefs.  Each person has a reason for their actions and beliefs. 

Anyone that has met me or conversed with me knows I just like learning something new about kenpo or any martial art.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 31, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> LTKKA - "Larry Tatum Kenpo Karate," Assn.


 
Thank you Captain Obvious! LOL. Sorry couldn't resist that one


----------



## Carol (Sep 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Carol, you have hit upon something that I believe is a real problem in the martial arts.
> 
> But my issue isn't with incompetent business practices so much as it is the whole mixture of martial arts and business in the first place. I think that in many ways, the two just do not mix well, no matter what.


 
I can appreciate what you are saying.  I don't fully agree for a couple of reasons.  One is, good business practices do not necessarily equate with profit or even financial transactions.  Example:  managing expectations.  Just becuase money does not change hands does not dismiss the importance of effectively managing a student's expectations.  



> Now I certainly understand that the business of martial arts is here to stay, and the availability of commercial schools are what enable many of us to train who would otherwise never have the opportunity. I also fall into that category so I cannot jump up and down on it too freely. But I do believe that it is very difficult to run a martial arts school as a business, and maintain the quality of what is being taught.


 
Agreed.  Running a business is not easy period...and I don't know anyone in business that say it is.  However, it is a task made far more difficult without appropriate education and training.  Unfortunately given the dearth of business training in MA, it is difficult for me to point to an example of how the two can blend together.  



> I think that to automatically tie martial arts instruction with learning to run a business assumes that every black belt will want to do this, and that's just not true. Earning a black belt doesn't necessarily need to include business education. What is learned in the dojo should be martial arts. If one wants to open a school, then they can choose to get business education, or work with the owner of a successful school to learn how to do it.


 
As someone that doesn't envsion myself teaching, let alone opening my own school  that is someting that I can definitely appreciate.  However, in many discussions I have heard references to "getting black belts ready to open their own schools."  I've seen some schools with leadership programs specifically geared towards training students to be instructors and even heading off on their own.  Perhaps some of the training should not be in the dojo but instead come from working with SCORE or the SBA or training at a local college....as well as the folks wroking in the industry (just throwing out ideas here.)   However, those resources will not offer the industry-specific knowledge that is also important to succeed.



> But getting back to my main point here, with regard to this discussion. I never knew much about Mr. Parker. It wasn't until I joined Martial Talk that I began to see suggestions that Mr. Parker created a business enterprise to teach martial arts, and that sometimes meant what got taught might have been somehow "lacking". Prior to this, I had always just assumed that his students studied under him, and he gave them the goods, and if he gave them rank, that was it. But posts here on MT hint that that was not always the case, and many decisions, including decisions about giving rank, were made with a focus on how it would affect the business. In short, people were waived in to the next level so they could open another school and generate revenue and income, or to keep them happy and keep them coming back and paying fees.
> 
> To me, if this is really what happened, it was a disservice to the arts. It has caused a lot of confusion and even in-fighting among those who teach, and those who wish to learn. And it really comes back to the business of martial arts. If he hadn't made it his livlihood, and had instead taught fewer people and insisted on high standards, maybe these problems would not exist today, and there would be fewer questions about legitimacy and quality of what people are doing and teaching. But of course the downside is that fewer people today would be training in his art, or one of the many derivitives that have developed from it.
> 
> So in short, I personally think the answer is not so much in teachers getting a proper business training, but rather separating the business from the martial arts. While some commercial schools do a good job, I believe that overall quality would be much higher if teachers taught trusted students out of love for the art, rather than love of a paycheck. The price to the students, however, is that fewer of them would have the opportunity to learn. It's a very unfortunate dillema and I don't have the answer to it. But I think we can acknowledge that Mr. Parker fed the beast, and his legacy is certainly alive and well today.


 
If Mr. Parker did do the things you say, then I agree...he not only did a disservice to the arts, but also a disservice to his business model by dissolving the value of the arts.  Good business does not mean "anything for a buck", good business is a workable model that maintains the value of the product.  

I don't believe the answer is non-profit teaching as the only model, for a few reasons.  Just as there are for-profit business models that do a disservice to the arts, there are also non-profit business models that do a disservice to the arts...such as the teachers that don't have the maturity, organizational skills, interpersonal skills, or moral compass to be able to succeed in a commercial environment.  Also, eliminating cash doesn't eliminate greed...as such, a non-profit teacher can also make decisions that are a disservice to the arts.  

Commercial schools also do quite a bit of service to martial artists that non-profits don't seem to offer.  From my own experience over the summer, it is the larger commercial schools that offer midday classes that fit my work schedule.  It the owner of a  commercial school that wrote his home phone number on the back of his business card and said that he was willing to give me a private lesson anytime I need one...and then told me a story about how he offered a pilot a 3 hour lesson between 2AM and 5AM.  They also take on the idjit noobies like me even though they aren't trusted students...but give them the opportunites to see if they can become one.  

I guess where I differ is that I don't see banning commercial schools as being realistic, or even desireable.  Instead, I'd rather see MA instructors recognize that organizational skills at some level are just as much a part of passing on their art as their fighting skills, and exploring how these skills can be use to achieve the maximum benefits.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 3, 2006)

I can see your points, Carol.  It's hard to know just what is the best answer.  Maybe it lies somewhere between our suggestions.


----------

