# A question about checks



## MattJ

Does anyone know how checks came about to exist in American kenpo? From what I have seen they did not exist in the early years (50's and 60's). They appear to have come about in the 70's sometime. I am aware that Mr. Parker incorporated elements from other styles (small circle theory, for example), but am curious as to where checks came from. 

Wing Chun and some of the FMA's use similar concepts, but checks do not seem to be native to any of the other kenpo/kempo arts that EPAK sprang from. 

Any ideas?


----------



## MattJ

Nothin' ?


----------



## Ceicei

Have you done a search through this forum?  Checks have been discussed quite a bit.  As far as I know, checks have been a part of American Kenpo for a long, long time, way before the 70's.  What lead you to think they did not exist in the 50's/60's?

Let me know if you haven't been able to find your answers using the search.  In the meantime, perhaps others may respond with the origins of checks.

- Ceicei


----------



## Kenpodoc

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Have you done a search through this forum? Checks have been discussed quite a bit. As far as I know, checks have been a part of American Kenpo for a long, long time, way before the 70's. What lead you to think they did not exist in the 50's/60's?
> 
> Let me know if you haven't been able to find your answers using the search. In the meantime, perhaps others may respond with the origins of checks.
> 
> - Ceicei


if you watch the old 8 mm film from the early '60's the checks are not there  also if you look at the Tracy techniques the checks are fewer and less emphasized.   My guess is that the checks came from a combination of Ark Wong, Mr. Parkers Philipino friends and personal experience but I was not there to answer for sure.  Perhaps doc will come in to continue to set me straight.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I do know that Huk Planas talks about the checks as a later addition to Kenpo but believe that they predated his start with Mr. Parker.

Jeff


----------



## MattJ

Thanks Jeff. Reading Mr. Parker's early books made no mention of checks, and having viewed some of the early films myself, I did not see them, either.

I was wondering about a CMA or possibly FMA connection for where checks came from. I am assuming they were introduced in the 70's or possibly the late 60's?  Perhaps Mr. Parker saw the Chi Sao aspect of Wing Chun or perhaps the arm grabbing from Panajakman and got an idea?

I am not discounting that he may have had some other epiphany a la the reverse-motion/film rewind episode, just trying to get an idea.

BTW - I did do a search. I did not find anything in the 11+ pages of results about the ORIGINS of checks.


----------



## Doc

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> if you watch the old 8 mm film from the early '60's the checks are not there  also if you look at the Tracy techniques the checks are fewer and less emphasized.   My guess is that the checks came from a combination of Ark Wong, Mr. Parkers Philipino friends and personal experience but I was not there to answer for sure.  Perhaps doc will come in to continue to set me straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know that Huk Planas talks about the checks as a later addition to Kenpo but believe that they predated his start with Mr. Parker.
> 
> Jeff


You're exacly right sir. The 'checks' as we know them, were inherent in the teachings of Ark Yuey Wong. The resemblance can be more readily observed in the 'Splashing Hands' of Huamea Lefiti as he studied under Ark Wong. Truthfully, it would be very difficult to come up with a componant that wasn't represented from Ark Wong. Ed Parker changed terminology of course, but every interpretation of the Parker Lineage after he made the leap away from His initial 'Kenpo Karate,' has its roots in the Chinese Martial Arts as interpreted by those two teachers, and to a lesser extent as well as, influenced by Jimmy Woo.  This influenced can be seen as well in another Parker Lineage through Grand Master Tuumumao "Tino" Tuiolosega, in Lima Lama.


----------



## Ray

<edited.  Never mind.>


----------



## MattJ

Thanks for the response, Doc. So, I assume that checks were added in the late 60's or early 70's?


----------



## HKphooey

Ray said:
			
		

> <edited. Never mind.>


Come on Ray!!!  I liked your explanation!


----------



## Doc

MattJ said:
			
		

> Thanks for the response, Doc. So, I assume that checks were added in the late 60's or early 70's?


What checks, incorporated in to which interpretation?

Some of us fall into the habit of speaking in inclusive absolute terms sprinkled with possessive pronouns. Which particular 'checks,' and which of the major Parker Kenpo interpretation are you speaking?

See how easy it is to get confusing? There are many different kinds of 'checks.' Not all of them found their way into all of Parker Kenpo Lineages.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Name a part of "five Swords" that is not a check. Then quit using it.
Sean


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Name a part of "five Swords" that is not a check. Then quit using it.
> Sean


 
Kewpie doll for the man in the gi.


----------



## nlkenpo

In Mr. Paul Dye's teachings at the IKC's in Holland this year he did some of the old techniques to show how the evolution of techniques worked.

In that seminar Mr. Dye told us that Mr. Parker in the old days mainly worked with people who came from other systems and therefore had a solid foundation of basics already, before they started doing Kenpo.
Those guys didn't need the kind of checks that are used in nowadays Kenpo because all the strikes they executed, actually worked. They were so called "painchecks". To clarify, let me give an example (my own, not Mr. Dye's).

In alternating maces the initial block stays on top of the arms as a check, to prevent the arms from coming up. If, however, you execute the 2nd move (vertical punch to the plexus) correctly, the least likely way those arms are going to go is up!
SO: if the 2nd move is executed correctly, no extra check is needed. The people Mr. Parker worked with in the beginning, tended to execute their 2nd moves correctly. BUT, Mr. Parker wanted to make the system suitable for everybody, effective for beginners too. That was why the extra checks were inplied.

The period of time this took place should indeed be 60's/70's.
I hope I paraphrased Mr. Dye's teachings correctly. Don't pin me down on details, but this was the general line of his story.

Regards,
Marcel


----------



## Doc

nlkenpo said:
			
		

> In Mr. Paul Dye's teachings at the IKC's in Holland this year he did some of the old techniques to show how the evolution of techniques worked.
> 
> In that seminar Mr. Dye told us that Mr. Parker in the old days mainly worked with people who came from other systems and therefore had a solid foundation of basics already, before they started doing Kenpo.
> Those guys didn't need the kind of checks that are used in nowadays Kenpo because all the strikes they executed, actually worked. They were so called "painchecks". To clarify, let me give an example (my own, not Mr. Dye's).
> 
> In alternating maces the initial block stays on top of the arms as a check, to prevent the arms from coming up. If, however, you execute the 2nd move (vertical punch to the plexus) correctly, the least likely way those arms are going to go is up!
> SO: if the 2nd move is executed correctly, no extra check is needed. The people Mr. Parker worked with in the beginning, tended to execute their 2nd moves correctly. BUT, Mr. Parker wanted to make the system suitable for everybody, effective for beginners too. That was why the extra checks were inplied.
> 
> The period of time this took place should indeed be 60's/70's.
> I hope I paraphrased Mr. Dye's teachings correctly. Don't pin me down on details, but this was the general line of his story.
> 
> Regards,
> Marcel


So let me get this straight. Paul said Mr. Parker put in 'checks' because without 'checks' the 'system wouldn't work for everybody?

While it is true most came from other styles and already had a working knowledge of the arts, the story suggests that Parker knew 'checks' but didn't need to teach them to certain people because they didn't need them because they were effective already. So by this logic, if Parker taught you 'checks,' it was because he didn't think you were any good?

So did Paul ever tell you where he got this info from sir, because he definitely wasn't there?


----------



## MJS

Doc said:
			
		

> You're exacly right sir. The 'checks' as we know them, were inherent in the teachings of Ark Yuey Wong. The resemblance can be more readily observed in the 'Splashing Hands' of Huamea Lefiti as he studied under Ark Wong. Truthfully, it would be very difficult to come up with a componant that wasn't represented from Ark Wong. Ed Parker changed terminology of course, but every interpretation of the Parker Lineage after he made the leap away from His initial 'Kenpo Karate,' has its roots in the Chinese Martial Arts as interpreted by those two teachers, and to a lesser extent as well as, influenced by Jimmy Woo. This influenced can be seen as well in another Parker Lineage through Grand Master Tuumumao "Tino" Tuiolosega, in Lima Lama.


 
Doc,

Checks IMO, play a big part in the system.  Reading this, it seems like the individuals mentioned are the ones who get the credit for them being there today.  What were the techniques like without them?  I mean, its hard to imagine the techs. without them seeing that they're such an important area.

Mike


----------



## Doc

MJS said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> Checks IMO, play a big part in the system.  Reading this, it seems like the individuals mentioned are the ones who get the credit for them being there today.  What were the techniques like without them?  I mean, its hard to imagine the techs. without them seeing that they're such an important area.
> 
> Mike


The 'techniques,' sans 'checks,' were the initial 'kenpo karate' interpretation as he learned from Chow that were heavily influenced by Japanese/Okinawan arts, including the Jiu-jitsu of Henry Okazaki. The naked hand in the chambered hip 'Index' position in these arts is well known in their applications.

As far as historical credit, 'checks' of various types were always a part of the Chinese Arts, so to give credit to a couple of people because someone studied the art and used them, would be like giving the makers of a pen credit for your 'writing.' It is a given you need a 'pen' to write, as it is a given the Chinese Arts have 'checks.'


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Name a part of "five Swords" that is not a check. Then quit using it.
> Sean


 
The neutral bow. LOL as if...


----------



## MattJ

Doc - 

I was referring to the standard pinning checks like palm to the elbow, or knee checks. My (admittedly cursory) study of other kenpo systems of that era (50's-60's) did not show them up anywhere, so I was curious where they might have come from and approximately when they were added to the system.


----------



## Doc

MattJ said:
			
		

> Doc -
> 
> I was referring to the standard pinning checks like palm to the elbow, or knee checks. My (admittedly cursory) study of other kenpo systems of that era (50's-60's) did not show them up anywhere, so I was curious where they might have come from and approximately when they were added to the system.


I really don't understand the question sir. You need to be very specific. "palm to elbow" ???? "Knee check." ?????


----------



## MattJ

??????? 

I did not realize this would be so difficult. A knee check as in the first move of Five Swords where your right leg is checking the opponent's right leg.

Checking with your hand to the opponent's wrist, elbow, shoulder etc.


----------



## Doc

MattJ said:
			
		

> ???????
> 
> I did not realize this would be so difficult. A knee check as in the first move of Five Swords where your right leg is checking the opponent's right leg.
> 
> Checking with your hand to the opponent's wrist, elbow, shoulder etc.


Things will always be difficult sir, when you assume that others have the same understandings you do. The term 'check' is very open-ended and vague in and of itself. Especially used within the context of a technique here, once again assuming, others perform the technique as you understand it.

Anyone who follows my writings on these forums know I disseminate information of value, and rarely venture into vague generalities when speaking of execution and/or applications that people may use and rely upon for their well-being.

For the record the "knee check" you mention in "Five Swords" is dysfunctional, and in my understandings is non-existent in actual application. As far as the 'hand check to the wrist, elbow, shoulder, etc,' I have no idea.

I get a sense what you call 'checks,' many others may call something else. At any rate the 'checks' inherent in the Chinese Martial Arts were incorporated in Mr. Parker's personal usage in the very early sixties prior to his publication of "Secrets of Chinese Karate."


----------



## jfarnsworth

If I may, Sir. I believe his response should have been the application of pressing checks, or pinning checks. Depending upon his application my guess is that he was referring to either of these.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The neutral bow. LOL as if...


What is neutral about the neutral bow? What is neutrality. I know you may have been kidding about the answer you gave, but I think you have hit on a very interesting point. Is keeping someone in check the same as checking? Why or why not?
Sean


----------



## Carol

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Is keeping someone in check the same as checking?
> Sean


 
Nope.  A check involves impact, says the NHL fan.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What is neutral about the neutral bow? What is neutrality. I know you may have been kidding about the answer you gave, but I think you have hit on a very interesting point. Is keeping someone in check the same as checking? Why or why not?
> Sean


 
Yeah I was kidding. but to the question that's why I like Huk Planas' terminology of checking.  He has checks and covers.  Checking is actually actively making contact to curtail an action.  Covers is placing the body in position to anticipate possible action.  I find cover a less confusing term to use when teaching than 'positional check'


----------



## Touch Of Death

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Nope. A check involves impact, says the NHL fan.


ALL the offensive techs say different. Starting with B1a.(leg to leg)
Sean


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> ALL the offensive techs say different. Starting with B1a.(leg to leg)
> Sean


 
does your leg not 'impact' their leg before maintaining constant pressure?  Any contact between objects involves some level of impact when the objects first make contact with each other.


----------



## HKphooey

IMO, a check is anything that keep the "boys" and the smile my parents paid for, intact!


----------



## MattJ

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> If I may, Sir. I believe his response should have been the application of pressing checks, or pinning checks. Depending upon his application my guess is that he was referring to either of these.


 
I was indeed, sir. I was attempting to make myself fairly clear, but meh.

Quote by MattJ - 



> I was referring to the standard pinning checks


 
But anyway, thank you Doc for answering my question. I am curious though, about what you meant by "what you call checks". You will have to forgive me, as I have been out of active EPAK practice since 1999. Is there another term that has come about for what I described? Back then, "check" was a fairly common term for what was understood to be pinning or pressing checks. Positional checks and so on were often called that specifically to avoid confusion.


----------



## Doc

MattJ said:
			
		

> I was indeed, sir. I was attempting to make myself fairly clear, but meh.
> 
> Quote by MattJ -
> 
> 
> 
> But anyway, thank you Doc for answering my question. I am curious though, about what you meant by "what you call checks". You will have to forgive me, as I have been out of active EPAK practice since 1999. Is there another term that has come about for what I described? Back then, "check" was a fairly common term for what was understood to be pinning or pressing checks. Positional checks and so on were often called that specifically to avoid confusion.


It depends upon your interpretation. Some utilize the term(s) check to suppliment applications. Others might sugest as we do, that the term 'check' is a given subcategory of all purposeful primary contact applications. For us, there are no 'primary check' applications, and therefore no reason to single them out for discusssion.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> does your leg not 'impact' their leg before maintaining constant pressure? Any contact between objects involves some level of impact when the objects first make contact with each other.


hence, its a check.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> hence, its a check.


 
Exactly, so Carol was right about a check involving impact and the offensive techniques don't say different.


----------



## Sigung86

Putting my own two cents in here ... And I'm probably wrong ... But that's never stopped me before. LOL!

The other night I was watching some old vid of SGM Parker which was shot after the Tracy Brothers left the fold. How to phrase this??? Tracy's Kenpo is, topically, not as sophisticated as later EPAK when it comes to using "checks" as opposed to the Okinawan/Japanese tendency to chamber the "opposite" hand.  That would be the old style as taught, and as seen on the original 8mm training tapes that Chuck Sullivan and SGM Parker put out in the very late 60s.  Nor does the Tracy method (Old style Kenpo) lend itself to mobility in the same manner as the later EPAK material.

At any rate, I was watching SGM Parker doing a particular series of moves (don't know which particular technique) and he was performing a hand check with each move.  I reran the portion a number of times just to validate my first impression, and he was not performing checks at all... At least not in the sense that I perceive that many of you are using the term. His "checks" were essentially, what I believe the good Doc refers to in his material as BAMs (Balance Alignment Mechanisms? And thanks for the validation Doc).  Each one of the "positional checks" were in fact, on further study of the material, enhancing a strike or block motion.  He was even putting a check at the distal/posterior portion of his elbow as it seemed he was performing an overhand type of strike.

Some of the BAMs he applied could probably be interpreted as "positional checks", although, in my paradigm, I don't really see the need for them in that interpretation.  However, others were obviously there to supplement, support, or enhance to some degree, the strike itself.

At the risk of pissing off a number of others, and apropos of the fact that I am an outside observer to EPAK, but a staunch supporter of Doc Chapél, his theories and applications, and Dennis Conatser, I think that folks need to re-examine their use of "positional checks" and validate, with fresh eyes and an open mind, why those motions are there, their actual functionality, and how they are most effectively applied.

I probably do need to shut up now, however, as I received a call from someone last p.m. wanting to know if I would teach them SL4.  I almost opted for Supra-Level 7, which is an admixture of old TRACO, Tracy's Karate, my shallow understanding of SL4, and Smith and Wesson. %-} ... er ... :caffeine:


----------



## Doc

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Putting my own two cents in here ... And I'm probably wrong ... But that's never stopped me before. LOL!
> 
> The other night I was watching some old vid of SGM Parker which was shot after the Tracy Brothers left the fold. How to phrase this??? Tracy's Kenpo is, topically, not as sophisticated as later EPAK when it comes to using "checks" as opposed to the Okinawan/Japanese tendency to chamber the "opposite" hand.  That would be the old style as taught, and as seen on the original 8mm training tapes that Chuck Sullivan and SGM Parker put out in the very late 60s.  Nor does the Tracy method (Old style Kenpo) lend itself to mobility in the same manner as the later EPAK material.
> 
> At any rate, I was watching SGM Parker doing a particular series of moves (don't know which particular technique) and he was performing a hand check with each move.  I reran the portion a number of times just to validate my first impression, and he was not performing checks at all... At least not in the sense that I perceive that many of you are using the term. His "checks" were essentially, what I believe the good Doc refers to in his material as BAMs (Balance Alignment Mechanisms? And thanks for the validation Doc).  Each one of the "positional checks" were in fact, on further study of the material, enhancing a strike or block motion.  He was even putting a check at the distal/posterior portion of his elbow as it seemed he was performing an overhand type of strike.
> 
> Some of the BAMs he applied could probably be interpreted as "positional checks", although, in my paradigm, I don't really see the need for them in that interpretation.  However, others were obviously there to supplement, support, or enhance to some degree, the strike itself.
> 
> At the risk of pissing off a number of others, and apropos of the fact that I am an outside observer to EPAK, but a staunch supporter of Doc Chapél, his theories and applications, and Dennis Conatser, I think that folks need to re-examine their use of "positional checks" and validate, with fresh eyes and an open mind, why those motions are there, their actual functionality, and how they are most effectively applied.
> 
> I probably do need to shut up now, however, as I received a call from someone last p.m. wanting to know if I would teach them SL4.  I almost opted for Supra-Level 7, which is an admixture of old TRACO, Tracy's Karate, my shallow understanding of SL4, and Smith and Wesson. %-} ... er ... :caffeine:


*Body ALignment Mechanism*. A part of the autonomic nervous systems use of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, as the body monitors itself and its many parts in 'space.' These mechanisms act as sensor cues to inform the body of where structure is needed in activities not yet supported by a mind body connection and hard wired synaptic pathways.


----------



## nlkenpo

Doc said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight. Paul said Mr. Parker put in 'checks' because without 'checks' the 'system wouldn't work for everybody?
> 
> While it is true most came from other styles and already had a working knowledge of the arts, the story suggests that Parker knew 'checks' but didn't need to teach them to certain people because they didn't need them because they were effective already. So by this logic, if Parker taught you 'checks,' it was because he didn't think you were any good?
> 
> So did Paul ever tell you where he got this info from sir, because he definitely wasn't there?


 
Nope, that's not what he said. Logic is difficult isn't it??

The story was that the checks were put in for beginners. Someone who wasn't any good, wouldn't be able to apply the checks so that wouldn't help them, now would it.

The checks were taught to everybody, good or not so good, because one day they might all become teachers teaching beginners, and therefore they'd be needing the checks.


----------



## Doc

nlkenpo said:
			
		

> Nope, that's not what he said. Logic is difficult isn't it??
> 
> The story was that the checks were put in for beginners. Someone who wasn't any good, wouldn't be able to apply the checks so that wouldn't help them, now would it.
> 
> The checks were taught to everybody, good or not so good, because one day they might all become teachers teaching beginners, and therefore they'd be needing the checks.


Sorry but the story doesn't hold up very well, and I was there.


----------



## nlkenpo

OK fair enough.

Maybe I paraphrased the story wrong, or maybe there's more than one perception possible of what really happened back then.

Whatever, the checks are there now, so we'd better study and apply them whenever possible and/or needed.

Regards,
Marcel


----------



## Doc

nlkenpo said:
			
		

> OK fair enough.
> 
> Maybe I paraphrased the story wrong, or maybe there's more than one perception possible of what really happened back then.
> 
> Whatever, the checks are there now, so we'd better study and apply them whenever possible and/or needed.
> 
> Regards,
> Marcel


On that we most defenitely can agree sir.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Let Fingerset be your master key set for checking.


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Let Fingerset be your master key set for checking.


That must be a serious joke.


----------



## Kenpodoc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Let Fingerset be your master key set for checking.


Please explain.

Jeff


----------



## MattJ

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Let Fingerset be your master key set for checking.


 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have MY attention, sir. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:
			
		

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> You have MY attention, sir. Can you elaborate?


After each strike you must return on the same path, provided you took the correct path to begin with; so, you are essentialy using the spaces between the notes to make the music.(I've heared that somewhere). Of course this is true of all your techs and sets but fingerset seems to force you into centripital and centrifical situations. I find the open handed return motion is so close to checking that I feel fingerset in all my forms and techs. Its a better place to go than looking on the internet for the one true way.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> After each strike you must return on the same path, provided you took the correct path to begin with; so, you are essentialy using the spaces between the notes to make the music.(I've heared that somewhere). Of course this is true of all your techs and sets but fingerset seems to force you into centripital and centrifical situations. I find the open handed return motion is so close to checking that I feel fingerset in all my forms and techs. Its a better place to go than looking on the internet for the one true way.
> Sean


Although waht you describe has the potential to check, you'll find in reality they lack the anatomical structural integrity to be realistically useful.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> Although waht you describe has the potential to check, you'll find in reality they lack the anatomical structural integrity to be realistically useful.


I use it all the time.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I use it all the time.
> Sean


How many guys have tried to rip your head off this week, If you say you use it all the time?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> How many guys have tried to rip your head off this week, If you say you use it all the time?


Its a motion Kenpo thing. Don't get mad. If I use return motion through my opponent he is checked, cancelled out, or what ever. I have managed to avoid fisticuffs this week; thank you.
Sean


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Its a motion Kenpo thing. Don't get mad. If I use return motion through my opponent he is checked, cancelled out, or what ever. I have managed to avoid fisticuffs this week; thank you.
> Sean


Slacker


----------



## Touch Of Death

Doc said:
			
		

> Slacker


Mr. Parker called it Pollynesian paralysis.


----------



## Doc

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker called it Polynesian paralysis.


Cultivated, no doubt, after dinner while riding the 'porcelain pony.'


----------



## Touch Of Death

Maybe slap-checking yourself was concieved there as well.


----------



## marlon

Hello Doc,
do you have or plan to make a YouTube vid on checks as you understand them.  Btw what type of checks do you teach, by name if it is not too much trouble
my thanks

Marlon


----------



## K831

marlon said:


> Hello Doc,
> do you have or plan to make a YouTube vid on checks as you understand them.  Btw what type of checks do you teach, by name if it is not too much trouble
> my thanks
> 
> Marlon



While I am quite confident that no "youtube" vid could be realistically made to explain all of the info on checking as doc "understands them" I do agree with Marlon's notion; a little vid giving some info on the subject, general or otherwise, would be a good one!


----------



## marlon

Ah, well the vid part was a bit of a joke as I have encountered Doc before
of course any explainations of checks he should want to share are more than welcome.
You see Sir, I have learned somewhat and have a little sense of humor.


----------



## Luther

Working Anatomical knowledge and or at the very least Quantified documentation on muscle behavior is really necessary to understand it's value and discuss it with any relevance to Kenpo. It's video representation would hold no more value than text on the subject. Anatomically speaking a "Slap check" or "BAM" could be measured with a concurrent  assessment of muscle activity by a qualified PT.


----------



## Doc

marlon said:


> Hello Doc,
> do you have or plan to make a YouTube vid on checks as you understand them.  Btw what type of checks do you teach, by name if it is not too much trouble
> my thanks
> 
> Marlon



"Checks" as you call them, are an inherent part of the "how" of execution. Specifically named checks are usually space markers for missing information.


----------



## marlon

As per usual your responses leaving steeped in the recognition of the limitations of my so called knowledge
thanks


----------



## yorkshirelad

Doc said:


> So let me get this straight. Paul said Mr. Parker put in 'checks' because without 'checks' the 'system wouldn't work for everybody?
> 
> While it is true most came from other styles and already had a working knowledge of the arts, the story suggests that Parker knew 'checks' but didn't need to teach them to certain people because they didn't need them because they were effective already. So by this logic, if Parker taught you 'checks,' it was because he didn't think you were any good?
> 
> So did Paul ever tell you where he got this info from sir, because he definitely wasn't there?


 Awesome, simply awesome!!


----------



## Touch Of Death

That wasn't awesome. Ed Parker taught checks because he thought the people weren't at the skill level to handle the more advanced ideas. Why does everyone have to be so negative?
Sean


----------



## Doc

marlon said:


> As per usual your responses leaving steeped in the recognition of the limitations of my so called knowledge
> thanks



Don't beat yourself up. Just keep learning as much as you can. It's not easy and requires time, and the presentation of useful knowledge.


----------



## marlon

Time, the will and drive to learn and work ethic I have the other part I seek everyday from wherever I can.  You Sir have been particularly helpful and have help me to refine my search and thinking.
Always willing to be challenged by you and learn what I can
my thanks
Marlon


----------



## Doc

marlon said:


> Time, the will and drive to learn and work ethic I have the other part I seek everyday from wherever I can.  You Sir have been particularly helpful and have help me to refine my search and thinking.
> Always willing to be challenged by you and learn what I can
> my thanks
> Marlon



We're all students at different places on the same road. It's people like you that keep me sharp and thinking.


----------

