# other kenpo



## kevin kilroe (Aug 16, 2003)

how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different? What about schools that teach say, 50 techniques to 1st black? or modern kenpo? (I am not exactly sure what that is yet.)Is there only one right way? If Mr. Parker were still alive, would the system be the same, or would it still be evolving, and in what direction? More techniques, less techniques? If tailoring is such an important principle, is tailoring the number of techniques taught wrong? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

Humbly,

kevin kilroe


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kevin kilroe _
> *how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
> Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different? What about schools that teach say, 50 techniques to 1st black? or modern kenpo? (I am not exactly sure what that is yet.)Is there only one right way? If Mr. Parker were still alive, would the system be the same, or would it still be evolving, and in what direction? More techniques, less techniques? If tailoring is such an important principle, is tailoring the number of techniques taught wrong? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
> 
> ...



There was already a similar thread to this posted on page 3 of the Kenpo/General forum.  However, maybe we can continue the discussion.  I do not know much about KC and how they run their org.  As for if the system would be the same?  Parker changed the system from when he first learned it, so yes, I'm sure that it would continue to evolve with the times.  As for the amount of tech?  That is also something that has been discussed on a previous thread.  Seeing that this varies from school to school, I guess it just depends on the Inst.  I tend to think that the reason the number of tech. is lessened, is to be able to promote the students at a faster rate.  Some people in the arts, are more concerned with how fast they advance in rank, rather than have a good understanding of what they are doing at their current ranking.  I'm not speaking for every school, just from some that I have seen.  

Mike


----------



## stickarts (Aug 17, 2003)

I had the good fortune to study at length with the grandmaster of a system and noted that as he learned and evolved, the system evolved. i have no doubt that it would have kept evolving.
however, at the same time, effective basics and root effective concepts don't change. Some changes that were made were methods that made learning easier.
As far as number of techniques, the larger the number that you try and get a student to memorize for testing, you eventually reach a point where they aren't very good at any of it.
I have a smaller core number of techniques that students are responsible for knowing and performing on their test, but lots of additional techniques are taught in the course of their training.
for us, it has nothing to do with speeding up their ranking, but in narrowing their focus to core material that i want them to be extremely good at.
That is just how i do it. i have seen different approaches with mixed results.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *IAs far as number of techniques, the larger the number that you try and get a student to memorize for testing, you eventually reach a point where they aren't very good at any of it.
> I have a smaller core number of techniques that students are responsible for knowing and performing on their test, but lots of additional techniques are taught in the course of their training.
> for us, it has nothing to do with speeding up their ranking, but in narrowing their focus to core material that i want them to be extremely good at.
> That is just how i do it. i have seen different approaches with mixed results. *



And that way of doing it seems to be working great!!!  

I remember an old saying from you Frank---  Quality over Quantity!!!  

Mike


----------



## stickarts (Aug 17, 2003)

thank you sir!


----------



## WhiteTiger (Aug 31, 2003)

This is a VERY OLD argument.

I am not an "EPAK" kenpoist, nor am I an expert in the subject, however I don't believe you have to be to understand the concepts which SGM Parker expressed in his teachings.  In my opinion SGM Parker's goal was to provide the student with the Dictionary of Motion.  

What do I mean by that?  Show the student what is possible, how to analyze, deconstruct, and reconstruct self defense techniques.  Give them the tools to learn on their own.

SGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this.  Some think this is not enough others too much.  The fact is that not everyone has the same ability for intuitive reasoning, some need more information than others to reach the next logical step.  So instruction is "Tailored" to the student, but you must still maintain a baseline, a point of reference, to measure the individual success of any student.

Too suggest that the evolution of Kenpo would mean the reduction in the minimum number of techniques is CRAZY!  To draw that argument to its extreme conclusion you would have to say that Kenpo would eventually become a system of no techniques.


----------



## Seig (Aug 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *
> SGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this.  *


Then how do you relate that to the 154 base technique system laid out by Mr. Parker?


----------



## clapping_tiger (Aug 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kevin kilroe _
> *how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
> Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different?  *



It is different. It is not intended to be Ed Parker's American Kenpo, that is why they call what they teach Chinese Kenpo, so there is no confusion on what they are teaching. They are teaching the same basic principles with fewer techniques. There is not as much repetition as in EPAK. 



> ]_Originally posted by WhiteTiger_SGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this. Some think this is not enough others too much. The fact is that not everyone has the same ability for intuitive reasoning, some need more information than others to reach the next logical step. So instruction is "Tailored" to the student, but you must still maintain a baseline, a point of reference, to measure the individual success of any student.



I have never heard about this. Could you please explain. 



> Too suggest that the evolution of Kenpo would mean the reduction in the minimum number of techniques is CRAZY! To draw that argument to its extreme conclusion you would have to say that Kenpo would eventually become a system of no techniques.



I would have to disagree. Once given the basic tools necessary, it is best to explore the art. I feel (once again this is just my opinion)that it is better to have fewer techniques and be allowed to play around with what was given. To work on 240 techniques and get them down cold would take many many many years. Now what if most of those techniques were basicly the same except a few minor changes here and there. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut out those minor changes and build the ability to think and react to any given situation or possible scenario on your own. In a sense makeing the art your own and tailor it to your body and your strong points. It seems to me that 240 techniques is quite excessive and (meaning no disrespect to anyone)would be best for those who cannot think for themselves and need to be shown what to to for any possible outcome.

I don't know if this will come across right, I was having a hard time putting my thoughts into words. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2003)

"To work on 240 techniques and get them down cold would take many many many years."

Noooo! Not that! Long hard study!


----------



## WhiteTiger (Sep 1, 2003)

My mistake, 240 was an error on my part.
However my point is still valid.  Teach the student the "basic vocabulary" of motion, teach them to analyze their motion, deconstruct, and reconstruct.

What I mean by deconstruct, and reconstruct, is to enable the student to break down techniques into their intergral parts, analyze how the individual parts work (th motion involved), and fit with other parts, and then recombine the parts into a whole.

This way the student learns more than just a self-defense technique but also how to construct their own techniques, using bits of motion from their "Dictionary".

If you have an "Abridged Dictionary" your vocabulary will be inferior.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Sep 1, 2003)

Break the words and there's still the same amount of letters in both dictionaries. So as long as you keep the 24 letters in the alphabet, you have all the posible words even though you may not know them at first.

The letters would be your basics, principles, etc, and the words the techniques. My point, people doing 55 techniques can have the same knowledge, even though they'll have to elaborate and study more later on they own. And the base should be better for being able to develop the material later.

That is, Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan know their stuff and are great masters. I think their kenpo is also great. 

IMHO, is not the system but the person doing it which matters.


----------



## WhiteTiger (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *That is, Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan know their stuff and are great masters. I think their kenpo is also great.
> *



Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques?  Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision?  Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another.  I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques.  I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.

Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?

I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click".


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Sep 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques?  Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision?  Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another.  I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques.  I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.
> 
> Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?
> ...



Vic was my first Kenpo instructor in 1986.   I learned maybe 55 techniques thru Brown.    If he knew the whole system, he didn't teach it then either.    I didn't know a third of what they were doing in West LA and found my current instructor in 1990 to fill in the gaps.     I was an example of needing to learn the entire curriculum to make it click.    I made it to 3rd and beyond LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## ob2c (Sep 3, 2003)

Guys, instead of rehashing the old 55 vs. 550 (Or whatever), let's look at this from a different perspective. What, exactly, are they missing in your opinion? What is lacking besides the extra techniques?

They can get the principles in 55 techs. But what about working the defenses to common attacks in different deminsions? Is this addressed adequately? EX: defense against a rear bear hug, arms pined. You can defend in depth- Captured Twigs. In width- Crushing Hammer. In height- squeezing the peach. Is this concept addressed in the IKCA carriculum? And if not, is it that big a deal?

Before you jump on that question, consider that everyone can't get to a good school to learn Kenpo. The IKCA course may be a good place to start, with the idea of going to the full course later. It may also be all some people want, for variouse reasons- not necessarily because they don't want to work at it. Another possibility, and one I've considered, is doing a course like the IKCA at the same time I learn another art. After over a year without a steady Kenpo training partner I'm having to reasses my options, and they may be one viable option (though I'm really struggling with the idea of leaving my current school).

One other thing, I heard they really did wel at Nationals, which speaks well of them.

All I'm saying is that we should look at this from all the different perspectives before condemning them because they do fewer techniques.


----------



## Doc (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques?  Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision?  Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another.  I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques.  I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.
> 
> Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?
> ...



Dam that was good.


----------



## Doc (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ob2c _
> *Before you jump on that question, consider that everyone can't get to a good school to learn Kenpo. The IKCA course may be a good place to start, with the idea of going to the full course later. It may also be all some people want, for variouse reasons- not necessarily because they don't want to work at it. All I'm saying is that we should look at this from all the different perspectives before condemning them because they do fewer techniques. *



I neither endorse nor condemn them for the number of techniques they teach, but this argument of "what if there isn't a kenpo school nearby?" is not valid IF you're going to accept ranking from your video experience, no matter how much it is "augmented."

What if you want to study a particular physical activity like football offered at a specialty college out of your state. Maybe there is some kind of football down the street but its not the kind at the college you want. Do you think if you got the video that you should have the same "rank status" as those who trained everyday with the coach and played in games? Or maybe you should take the video expereince for what it is and not expect rank. Lastly, do you think you could line up with the the team that learned in-person and played for 4 years?

You can only get away with such ideas in a "hypothetical environment." "You punch and I could have done this to you." Take back the football analogy and replace it with grappling, wrestling, boxing, or a circus trapeze act. Would you expect to be competent in those areas which are NOT as complex as Kenpo self-defense? Just a thought.


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WhiteTiger _
> *I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click". *



I understand where you are coming from, but I would postulate a different perspective: The crux does not lie in the fact that techniques are eliminated, but rather whether any principles or concepts have been eliminated. If in fact all the principles and concepts are present in a given number of techniques be it 10, 55 or 154; is not the system present? Kenpo is not a number, it is a method.

Here's one for all of us Kenpo speculators: Let's say a reasonably intelligent individual is taught the principles and concepts from Kenpo without being taught specific techniques. Then task them to come up with a series of techniques that incorporate all they have been taught. I wonder how many techniques we would end up with? The answers would probably be all over the board (or is it bored). I suspect that the end result would be less not more, but that's just my opinion nothing more. 

Food for thought.

Respects,
Bill Parsons


----------



## Doc (Sep 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bdparsons _
> *I understand where you are coming from, but I would postulate a different perspective: The crux does not lie in the fact that techniques are eliminated, but rather whether any principles or concepts have been eliminated. If in fact all the principles and concepts are present in a given number of techniques be it 10, 55 or 154; is not the system present? Kenpo is not a number, it is a method.
> 
> Here's one for all of us Kenpo speculators: Let's say a reasonably intelligent individual is taught the principles and concepts from Kenpo without being taught specific techniques. Then task them to come up with a series of techniques that incorporate all they have been taught. I wonder how many techniques we would end up with? The answers would probably be all over the board (or is it bored). I suspect that the end result would be less not more, but that's just my opinion nothing more.
> ...



Excellant point of course. But I marvel at those who suggests that the number of techniques found represented in the "manuals" is somehow based on Mr. Parker's need for a specific number to allow students to express the conceptual ideas he expounded. Could it be that the number of techniques were driven, at least in part, by other reasons? Chuck Sullivan doesn't seem to think you need as many or as complicated, whereas Al Tracy is the opposite with more additions and variations than what Parker settled on. The reality is the "business" of kenpo influneced all of them in some manner. Good or bad depends on whose teaching and what is being taught. Just a thought.


----------



## ob2c (Sep 4, 2003)

Doc, you make some good points with your football analogy. And I agree to some extent- the guy who puts in the time and effort to really learn a more extensive program would probably be better at most any discipline. However:

Some may love Kenpo, but for variouse reasons may not be able to attend a regular Kenpo school. If there is a good school in another style nearby that they can train with, and that style is compatable with Kenpo, I fail to see the problem with taking both and making the best of your situation. As for ranking, I care less. Rank is only as respected as the entity that confers it, and really only meaningful in that organization any how. If I end up going that route, I'll test for rank through them. But as a practical matter I would usually wear the rank of the school I train with here. Would you have a person in this situation do nothing, or maybe just do the other art?

Another possibility, some people don't want as much out of the martial arts as others. I'm not saying that the IKCA shorts any one, but that some may not, for whatever their reasons, want to do a full course. Hypothetically, let's say that they just want to compete at higher levels. They see that the IKCA folks do pretty well in competition, and decide to learn the shorter system. I don't have a problem with that.

Yet another possibility- some peoples schedules are extremely hectic and irregular. Making it to anything on a regular basis might be impossible. Video training and testing are a good, maybe the only, alternative.

I could go on, but I'll make my point here. I think the IKCA fills a need for a lot of people. They have filled a void in the market. As to whether they adequately meet the needs of their customers, only they (the customers) can answer that, unles someone can point to something that is being taught that is incorrect or dangerous.


----------



## ob2c (Sep 4, 2003)

I wanted to answer this in its own post:



> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Do you think if you got the video that you should have the same "rank status" as those who trained everyday with the coach and played in games?*



On the football field or on the street, your rank or standing doesn't mean anything. All that matters is the scoreboard at the end of the game.

I'm not against ranking systems, belts in particular. But I do think we sometimes get too hung up on them. Again, the rank is only as good as the style that confers it, the school that teaches it, and the practitioner that uses it- in reverse order of importance. My opinion, feel free to differ.


----------



## Doc (Sep 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ob2c _
> *Doc, you make some good points with your football analogy. And I agree to some extent- the guy who puts in the time and effort to really learn a more extensive program would probably be better at most any discipline. However:
> 
> Some may love Kenpo, but for variouse reasons may not be able to attend a regular Kenpo school. If there is a good school in another style nearby that they can train with, and that style is compatable with Kenpo, I fail to see the problem with taking both and making the best of your situation.
> *


*

Well compatibility depends on the level of study in the school that's nearby. Understand we are speaking on the most superficial of levels where it's all about just "moving." At that level most are pretty compatible. "Making the best of a situation" depends upon what you find acceptable. Clearly there are those who will accept whatever you offer, especially if they can get a belt for it.




			As for ranking, I care less. Rank is only as respected as the entity that confers it, and really only meaningful in that organization any how. If I end up going that route, I'll test for rank through them. But as a practical matter I would usually wear the rank of the school I train with here.
		
Click to expand...


Well I commend you for that. Bravo, its about acquired knowledge and skill, but of course people love "certifications," ranks, and trophies. It's the nature of the beast.




			Would you have a person in this situation do nothing, or maybe just do the other art?
		
Click to expand...


For me,  I would consider another art or nothing. Consider how serious you are with your study. You will take instructions from one who I presume is acquaiting you with the intricacies of a particular discipline, and then augment it with things you know nothing about. It's an insult to the teacher and a dis-service to your own progress. I know this is America and everyone can do whatever they want to do, but there are some things in life you just can't have when you want them.




			Another possibility, some people don't want as much out of the martial arts as others. I'm not saying that the IKCA shorts any one, but that some may not, for whatever their reasons, want to do a full course.
		
Click to expand...


I understand, and you make sense to me. My problem is those same people who "don't really want to get into it" or are just "checking it out" are the same ones who will be displaying their belts. I guarantee these people will not make distinction in their belts compared to yours.




			Hypothetically, let's say that they just want to compete at higher levels. They see that the IKCA folks do pretty well in competition, and decide to learn the shorter system. I don't have a problem with that.
		
Click to expand...


actually neither do I, but I don't consider competition anything but just that. It is a measure of many things depending upon the kind of competition, but not a measure of martial arts knowledge. The lowest common denominator is always competition, not the highest otherwise you'd have to give Mike Tyson, and every so-so club fighter a black belt. Give a cup ad mouthpiece and they'll take your kicks and kick your a$$.

I know a gang of people who taught themselves to compete. Putting on a white belt and just jumping into a tournament until they get the hang of it. Then when they think they're ready, they move up to another level. All the way to black and consistent trophies. So what does it mean if you can be successful with no instruction? 

I know a ton of street fighters you could give black belts to, and they are self taught by experience. I have a partner who has never studied in his life and he's got my back. I've seen him take down some really tough guys and most "black belts" would be in trouble if he had a warrant for their arrest. They would go whether they wanted to or not. 

What I hear on the street is, "That karate ***** don't work." And when they say that I usually agree with them. How could you not when every kid and guy who lives near a strip mall or store front has one. Statistically most people never get in a fight or maybe one over their lifetime, so they never get a chance to find out what they don't know. I see on some level consumers abusing their participation in video programs, and presenting themselves on the same level as those who have trained in schools, who by the way aren't that good either in most cases. It just contributing to the problem. A black belt used to be special, not any more. It's just another activity. 

I remember having a fit when I was a kid gong to class. My grandmother used to ask me, "Are you going to play karate today?" I spent hours explaining to her just hoe serious training was. Now I find out after all these years, maybe she was right.




			Yet another possibility- some peoples schedules are extremely hectic and irregular. Making it to anything on a regular basis might be impossible. Video training and testing are a good, maybe the only, alternative.
		
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wanted to be a trapeze artist but I just didn't have the time to fit it in, so I got a video and they rated me a "journeyman trapeze artist." I hope I never have to get on that swing to prove it. Afterall I got the certificate, and that's all I really wanted.




			I could go on, but I'll make my point here. I think the IKCA fills a need for a lot of people. They have filled a void in the market. As to whether they adequately meet the needs of their customers, only they (the customers) can answer that, unles someone can point to something that is being taught that is incorrect or dangerous.
		
Click to expand...

*
Incorrect or dangerous is subjective, but I agree with you completely. In fact the idea of video teaching was Ed Parker's idea long before anyone did it. He envisioned it as a marketing tool for places that didn't have enough of a sales base to support a regular school as a business vehicle. He intended to establish "clubs" with video correspondence augmented by traveling teachers for those who would otherwise not have access to his art. But he also said he would refuse to utilize video with people who lived someplace where there was an established school they could attend. 

Martial Arts on demand is not a viable concept, (except as business venture), however for those who would partake of it, I would suggest your view. Take the course but not the belt. False confidence and rank can be devestating.


----------



## ob2c (Sep 4, 2003)

Well, sir (Doc), we apparently aren't that far apart on our opinions. One of the reasons I'm considering this option is that I think AK is a hands on art, and I've found myself both without a good training partner (and the prospects are still raising dust clouds behind them) as well as unable to travel for instruction like I was. Air time alone just doesn't do it.

One group I'm looking at training with is a primarily FMA based style, but they also do a mixed venue. And they fight with contact on a weekly basis. Also, every one there has some prior martial arts experience, and brings their own 'flavor' to the mat. They have an attitude that 'if it worked, it was right'. Unfortunately, I'd have to travel a little to work with them, and that may not be possible either for a while. But I have other options as well. Bottom line, I enjoy doing martial arts, and I enjoy Kenpo. So I'll make it work somehow. That is where the IKCA fits the program, they give me an option to make adjustments and continue, at least with some Kenpo flavoring.

As for making mistakes in marrying multiple arts, I've raised that concern with the instructors here. Like one said, when I walk off the mat, I'll know.

edit: I don't mean to misrepresent myself here- I havn't started training with the IKCA yet. They are just one option I'm considering. Right now I'm just working out when and where, and with whoever I can. That can be an education of sorts in itself!


----------



## Doc (Sep 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ob2c _
> *Well, sir (Doc), ....
> I don't mean to misrepresent myself here- I havn't started training with the IKCA yet. They are just one option I'm considering. Right now I'm just working out when and where, and with whoever I can. That can be an education of sorts in itself! *



Good for you!


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Sep 9, 2003)

Doc,

I agree with you straight to the bone.  I think that people get way to involved in the # of techniques and I understand why they think that way.  I used to be one of those students that was always asking for the next techniue or extension.  Not even asking what it is that each technique is tryng to teach.  Mr Wedlake has alway said slow it down and think about all of the possibilities and "what if's".  Well, it finially sunk in and then I began to really learn.

As far as  you ideas on students that just want to be GIVEN belts and are not interested in the journey and not the pain that it SHOULD take to EARN them.  Everyone seems to be interested in belts and the are missing that a belt represants knowledge and experience.

I have been verry frustraited lately with student that claim that they want to train but then when it come time for class they are either hurt or no where to be found.  I have tried to make my classes both physical and detailed but at the end of the day I think that the average student doesn't want to work that hard.  

We have a saying at our school.  97% of our student body is there to keep the lights on for the 3% of us who are there to learn and train.

I hope that I will be able to get out to one of your seminar sometime in the near future.  I have read everything that you have on your site and your sub level four is verry interesting.

From one scientist to another

Have a great day :asian:


----------



## Doc (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Atlanta-Kenpo _
> *Doc,
> 
> ... but at the end of the day I think that the average student doesn't want to work that hard.
> ...


*

Of course you're right but I decided in the seventies to change the percentages. 100% or go somewhere else. That's why I don't run a commercial school and make it difficult to get in. Everybody there really wants to be there. Someone once asked me how long does it take for the average guy to get a black belt from me. The answer was simple, they don't. I don't accept average students.




			I hope that I will be able to get out to one of your seminar sometime in the near future.  I have read everything that you have on your site and your sub level four is verry interesting.

From one scientist to another

Have a great day :asian:
		
Click to expand...

*
Thank you much. Us scientist need to get together more often.:asian:


----------



## dcence (Sep 15, 2003)

I love Kenpo.  With that said I would rather learn a less effective martial art hands on, than the most awesome art via video.  If you don't regularly apply what you learn on a real flesh partner, it won't work when it comes time to use it on a real flesh attacker.


----------



## Doc (Sep 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dcence _
> *I love Kenpo.  With that said I would rather learn a less effective martial art hands on, than the most awesome art via video.  If you don't regularly apply what you learn on a real flesh partner, it won't work when it comes time to use it on a real flesh attacker. *


You indeed said a mouthfull sir, and I agree wholeheartedly and have said so repeatedly.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 17, 2003)

Martial Art training via video. That HAS to be an American idea. Commercialism at its worst I'm afraid.

This stuff isn't Chemistry or Mathematics. I just can't believe what is going on out there.

IMHO videos are on the same level as books (if that) in that they can be a reference. That's it.


----------



## Doc (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Martial Art training via video. That HAS to be an American idea. Commercialism at its worst I'm afraid.
> 
> This stuff isn't Chemistry or Mathematics. I just can't believe what is going on out there.
> ...



I like that, but books are much harder. They require that you not only have to READ, but  they force you to THINK too. These days that would be an unusuall approach. Video can be a reference of HOW something is supposed to look, but the nuances of human movement and interaction cannot be seen even there.

I was lecturing last night and one of my lower division students asked me why I made such a big deal about the thumb position in a heel palm strike. I had him execute it correctly than I struck him lightly at the conception terminus point with no effect. Than I had him straighten his thumb slightly with no other change in posture. When I struck him again he dropped to the floor.

If you could see something, you still would have to have the knowledge to recognize what was, or was not being done and whether it was being done correctly, (which from my perspective, I guarantee it is not).

But it's all about what level a person aspires to, and I think everyone has a right to choose - but that doesn't make all belts of the same rank equal. There is an extreme disparity between practitioners at all ranks from top to bottom. Why is that? Because like everything else, no two people get the same education from a single discipline. The only reasonble measure of quality is the source, and even that is no guarantee for many reasons.

Some people  think race has an influence on everything, I disagree. Me? I think it's money.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Sep 18, 2003)

DOC

Your right about that. That green stuff make the world go round and what people will do to stay on the ride amazes me


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _*
> Some people  think race has an influence on everything, I disagree. Me? I think it's money.  *



Well, you are wrong....... RACE does have an influence on everything..... 

"which" race you say.... The Human Race of course, (which IS influenced by money)!!! hee hee

:rofl:
:asian:


----------



## Doc (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Well, you are wrong....... RACE does have an influence on everything.....
> 
> "which" race you say.... The Human Race of course, (which IS influenced by money)!!! hee hee
> ...



GO TO YOU ROOM!


----------



## Basicman (Dec 31, 2003)

I have read this thread with quite a lot of interest.  I have no choice really if I want to study Kenpo or Martial Arts at all except by videotape and practicing.  I live in the middle of Nebraska.  Our town has only one school, ninjitsu.  I have no interest in that art.  I studied YKD in the states and in Korea, but have no interest in continuing with that system.  So what do you do then?  Relocate?  Not an option with family and career.  Don't study at all?  I don't think that is an option either.  I really do not care about what belt I get.  I want the information.  Let's face it, the chances of me EVER having to have a violent confrontation here is zilch.  Doc mentioned earlier about quality of instruction, etc.  That happens with everything.  No two colleges or universities are on the same level for all their programs.  If some graduates from the Carribean with low Cs with their MD, what do you call them?  "Doctor"  I feel really credentials mean nothing.  I mean that through out our society.  Yes it means they have had some basic schooling in their craft.  With me, whether you are a Doctor or a Martial Artist show me what your "stuff" and earn my respect don't try to wow me with whatever.

By the way, if someone wants to be a Black Belt, they can at anytime.  You can make your own certificate on a computer and buy a Belt from AWMA.  I find the ones that are dime stor Balck Belts get their due eventually.  Life has a way of putting them in their place.

Keep up a great discussion.

Happy New Year All

John


----------



## arnisador (Dec 31, 2003)

Some people may truly have no other option than relying on distance training, and I understand that. If you have a partner and can meet with an instructor several times a year, I think you can still get something out of it (depending on what exactly you're studying).

My beef is with those who see it as the easy way out rather than a necessity. For example, I posted about what seemed like questionable programs here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12291


----------



## Basicman (Dec 31, 2003)

I would have to strongly agree with you about the Christian one and Adrian Romains motives.  I have talked to Vic with the IKCA and must say I was impressed.  He emphasized that they were not a Black Belt Mill and made it clear to me, that he was quite accessible for any questions or whatever help he could give.  Again I think you hit on the head Arnisador when you said "it depends on what you want to get out of it."  I must say, these threads have made me think more about evaluating different methods of instruction.

John


----------



## arnisador (Dec 31, 2003)

What bothered me about the Sullivan/LeRoux article was that they seemed to be making the argument that video learning and testing is superior--more consistent tests, etc.--plus the complaint that once again Black Belt is printing a fawning article about distance learning in what seems like a clear case of catering to the magazine's own interests.

Of course, I'm only going by what I read on the apge and the impression it made on me.


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jan 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *I had the good fortune to study at length with the grandmaster of a system and noted that as he learned and evolved, the system evolved. i have no doubt that it would have kept evolving. *



Do you mean you trained with Ed Parker?


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jan 3, 2004)

or Chuck Sullivan?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *I had the good fortune to study at length with the grandmaster of a system and noted that as he learned and evolved, the system evolved. i have no doubt that it would have kept evolving.
> however, at the same time, effective basics and root effective concepts don't change. Some changes that were made were methods that made learning easier.
> As far as number of techniques, the larger the number that you try and get a student to memorize for testing, you eventually reach a point where they aren't very good at any of it.
> ...



I never had the pleasure to train with GM Ed Parker, although  I have had the pleasure to train with two GM's in FMA's, and I saw one grow as he was the first generation GM, and to the second generation GM, I have not seen the growth. Nothing wrong with either art or GM. Just comments and observations.

Thank You
:asian:


----------



## ob2c (Jan 19, 2004)

Well, I am at the point where I havn't got too many choices right now. The first choice, quit the martial arts, I don't consider an option.  I still hook up and try to work enough on my AK skills so I don't loose them, and maybe learn a thing or two as well. But pretty much the only thing I can do there is stagnate, which is worse than quitting. The only school I have access to locally is a non-traditional TKD school. I recently joined them and have been reworking their moves with AK principles (which they like). I also combine moves to make techniques (which they require). So far it seems to be working well, but it just isn't Kenpo (snivel). So, I'm in the process of getting it together to send in my application to the IKCA. Together I think that the two systems are about the best I can do right now. Both are viable, respected systems. I understand if this bothers some of the pureists- but like I said earlier, they definately fill a need for some of us.

By the way, as for the issue of belts- the TKD school offered to put me on a fast track for advancement because they say I'm at a more advanced level. I declined, and in fact have postponed my first test because I havn't had time to work my 'martial applications' (Kenpoization) of their Yellow techniques. Th' belts are purty, but the knowlege and skills are what's important. The IKCA makes that available to me.


----------



## bdparsons (Jan 19, 2004)

You mention the "purists" not being happy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most of the folks you mention have only a word of mouth, superficial knowledge of the system. Though there are some folks who have found out the IKCA is not for them for various reasons, nearly everyone that I've spoken to who have tried the IKCA have been pleased. Be prepared to rethink a few things, but your previous training should be an asset to you. Remember, you'll get out of it what you put into it. But isn't that the same for face-to-face instruction? If you have any questions concerning the program, feel free to PM me, be glad to help out where I can.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
IKCA Member


----------



## Doc (Feb 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *... however, at the same time, effective basics and root effective concepts don't change...*



Perhaps not in your experience, but yes they do. As one evolves the understanding of similar material grows and evolves as well. "There is no such thing as basics, only a basic understandfing of basics. - Ed Parker Sr.


----------

