# Interesting E.P. Quote or (things that make you say hummmmmmmmmmm!)



## Doc (Mar 5, 2003)

"Working with others having varying arm and leg lengths, mannerisms, and methods of executing moves proved fruitful.  
*It made me aware of the need to learn MOTION thoroughly.* 
The ability to protect and hit from any angle thrilled me to know end...
* This manner of thinking was typical at this point in my life, BUT CHANGED in later years as I matured and was assured of my proficiency."*

*Ed Parker*

Any comments on what you think he meant by the above statement? Should make for some colorful conversation.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Mar 5, 2003)

Perhaps some context would be of benefit.  Where and when did this quote occur (I'm not looking for exacts, just trying to establish a point on the kenpo timeline)?


----------



## tarabos (Mar 5, 2003)

for one...i think it's something we all become aware of when we work with someone shorter, taller, larger or smaller than we are used to working with. we tend to become accustomed to working with one or two bodies and developing tendencies specific to their height and size and body type, when we should really be developing our movements so that they can be universal to the best of our abilities and to the extent that they can (sometimes different heights and sizes call for different measures than they would for an "average" sized person). 

Mr. Parker reffers to himself thinking this way at a certain point in his life/training. to a degree...i believe that "thinking" is the key word here. when we first become aware of the difficulties that may arise when we are not used to an opponent or attacker with a different body type, we begin to think about it and mull it over and try to think about what particular things could be done. however we should be striving to "not think" about it and just be able to have it flow out of us naturally. developing it as an instinct and thus becoming more "confident" with ourselves and our abilites and not letting size or strength dictate what we may be apprehensive of or treat differently. 

long story short, the quote to me describes Mr. Parker developing in his own right, and i for one find it both interesting and comforting that someone of his skill felt the same feelings that i did and still do from time to time. in a way it gives you hope and gives you a goal.  

geeze...this is tough to do while looking over your shoulder for you boss... now that's what i call real skill...


----------



## headkick (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *"Working with others having varying arm and leg lengths, mannerisms, and methods of executing moves proved fruitful.
> It made me aware of the need to learn MOTION thoroughly.
> The ability to protect and hit from any angle thrilled me to know end...
> ...



Was that "thirlled me to no end..." ?  

Elipses in aquote like that make me think something else was said.  So, I don't really know what manner of thinking changed.  There are at least 3 choices in the quote provided.  It's interesting, though.  But since I never had the privilege of knowing Mr. Parker, I won't presume to guess what he meant.  I know what it says to me, however.


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by headkick _
> *Was that "thirlled me to no end..." ?
> 
> Elipses in aquote like that make me think something else was said.  So, I don't really know what manner of thinking changed.  There are at least 3 choices in the quote provided.  It's interesting, though.  But since I never had the privilege of knowing Mr. Parker, I won't presume to guess what he meant.  I know what it says to me, however. *



"This knowledge incresed my ability of being victorious on the street."  is the rest of the quote."

So essentially your comment is "I don't know what else was said, but even if I did, I wouldn't guess what he meant?  So your comment is I have no comment?


----------



## Sigung86 (Mar 5, 2003)

It would seem that, at one point, he recognized a need, filled the need, became confident that the filling was a good thing through judicious and practical application, accepted it, grew comfortable with it being part of him, and then moved on.

Seems pretty simple to me, but then I, like a good friend of mine says, "Could be wrong".  And really wouldn't be surprised if I was.

Dan "I'm comfortable" Farmer


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> *It would seem that, at one point, he recognized a need, filled the need, became confident that the filling was a good thing through judicious and practical application, accepted it, grew comfortable with it being part of him, and then moved on.
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me, but then I, like a good friend of mine says, "Could be wrong".  And really wouldn't be surprised if I was.
> ...



The operative phrase is "moved on." And that is why the Parker of old who loved to teach with "motion" didn't move himself  the way he was teaching others. He PAMed, Slapchecked, BAMed, and used nerve strikes among other things. Look at the films and tapes, but don't get too comfortable.


----------



## Sigung86 (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *The operative phrase is "moved on." And that is why the Parker of old who loved to teach with "motion" didn't move himself  the way he was teaching others. He PAMed, Slapchecked, BAMed, and used nerve strikes among other things. Look at the films and tapes, but don't get too comfortable. *



Good Doctor,

I never get "too" comfortable.  The more I see ... The more I see!

The more I see ... The less I know.

Most respectfully submited,

Dan "Well, Maybe not THAT comfortable" Farmer


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> *Good Doctor,
> 
> I never get "too" comfortable.  The more I see ... The more I see!
> ...



The interesting thing is the statement was first made in the MID-Seventies, and published in 81.


----------



## Seig (Mar 6, 2003)

Doc,
You and I have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, I am sure this will always be the case.  That you have a lot of knowledge is not in debate, that you are a martial artist of experience is not in debate, that you have material of value/worth is not in debate, that you are respected is not in debate.  We do not question that you and Mr. Parker were friends and that you can quote him extensively. You have contributed a lot to the boards, some of it wonderful, some of it not, some of it mixed.  I realise that controversy sells and that you have a product to sell.  But Doc, at what point does controversy simply become pot stirring?  We all know that Mr. Parker did not pass on everything he knows and to some he passed on nothing.  We all know that you feel or give the impression that you feel that we are all learning commercialized crap.  I, sir, for one am growing quite weary of it.  I am not one of those that refuses to see that there is always more to learn, but I too have a business to run.  We, in Kenpo, whatever the flavor, all come from the same roots.  To see anyone, much less a senior, bashing or giving the impression of bashing on the art, makes us all look bad.  I love my art, as you love yours, I do not discredit you or try to.  Why, sir, do you incessantly try and negate what we do?  My students read this board and I would rather they get more usefull information to stimulate their thought processes and to fuel intelligent questions instead of what has the earmarks of propoganda.  I guess what I am asking, sir, is that you continue with the informative and educational posts, as well as the fun ones, and to quit stirring a pot that is already overdone.:asian:


----------



## headkick (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *"This knowledge incresed my ability of being victorious on the street."  is the rest of the quote."
> 
> So essentially your comment is "I don't know what else was said, but even if I did, I wouldn't guess what he meant?  So your comment is I have no comment? *



Pretty much, yup.  I know what it says to me, which is probably not the same thing it says to you.  I wasn't there and didn't know the man.


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 6, 2003)

Take it back to KenpoNet if you want this kind of interaction.  Not good, not bad, I just don't want it here.  

I am serious about preferring a Forum with sharing, not one-upping the other, or demeaning what they spent a lifetime learning (like me.)  Doc, I respect and on some level like and admire you.  But I also get tired of the condesending attitude, whether it is intentional or not.  YOU DOC have explained your position, it would be condesending of you to do it again ... WE GET IT.  But we are just not going to get it from you.  Usually I just refuse to respond.  This time I am.  I am having a really bad day, dealing with a Capital Murder case .. the rest seems somewhat trite and devisive to me.  

Take it outside guys!

-Michael


----------



## tarabos (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *The interesting thing is the statement was first made in the MID-Seventies, and published in 81. *



i have to bite on this one...how is that the interesting part?


----------



## Kenpomachine (Mar 6, 2003)

I can't see anything wrong with the statment that opened the thread.

Btw, I agree with Dan's iterpretation.


----------



## jazkiljok (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *I can't see anything wrong with the statment that opened the thread.
> 
> Btw, I agree with Dan's iterpretation. *



i agree--too, can't find anything wrong with posting a quote like that-- as far as its interpretations as to what it means-- i'm going to pass-- i'm not sure what it's suppose to mean and Ed Parker's quotes can contradict in some cases, leave no conclusions in others and be outright confusing in some other cases. i guess i just made myself a greater heretic than Doc with that one

and i don't think Doc's intent is to stir any pot but the one on the shoulders with this-- if it is a done issue for some then just don't pay mind-- but if Doc wants to springboard from this and state some of  his views, share some of his history with Mr. Parker etc-- let him do it-- might yield some interesting stuff for those who find his posts insightful (and i'm that side myself more often than not).

peace.

 :asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *Take it back to KenpoNet if you want this kind of interaction.  Not good, not bad, I just don't want it here. -Michael *



I agree!! :asian: 



> I am having a really bad day, dealing with a Capital Murder case .. the rest seems somewhat trite and devisive to me.



I'm sorry to hear that.



> Jazkiljok:
> i don't think Doc's intent is to stir any pot



I don't think so either!


----------



## arnisador (Mar 6, 2003)

So many angles on Kenpo! They're almost different styles. Help out us non-Kenpoka and start giving them different names so we can tell the players apart!


----------



## Elfan (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *So many angles on Kenpo! They're almost different styles. Help out us non-Kenpoka and start giving them different names so we can tell the players apart! *



-There are 2 kinds of Kenpo, my kind and the wroung kind.

- How many Ed Paker Black belts does it take to change a light bulb? One to change it and 99 to say thats not how Mr. Parker taught them.

My point with those two jokes is to show that while Kenpo is fragmented many people retain an idea of "one true kenpo" or "one right way to do things."  Supose when you are inside it you can just sorta get used to it while the lack of formal distinctions or names is probably really confusing for everyone else.


----------



## tarabos (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *- How many Ed Paker Black belts does it take to change a light bulb? One to change it and 99 to say thats not how Mr. Parker taught them.*



lol...:rofl: 

i laugh...but it's the sad truth...


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by headkick _
> *Pretty much, yup.  I know what it says to me, which is probably not the same thing it says to you.  I wasn't there and didn't know the man. *



Well that's a fair comment in itself. thanks for sharing.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> Doc, .....  I realize that controversy sells and that you have a product to sell.



We were doing fine until you got to this point. I do not have a product to sell. And never have I suggested that anyone should buy anything. Remember I do not make my living from Kenpo. Never have, but you seem to have made this about "business." 



> We all know that you feel or give the impression that you feel that we are all learning commercialized crap.



Well I know I have never said that. In fact Ive only promoted a thought process that suggests there is always more to the art for all of us, and none of us should settle in and think we have it all, or try to discover the rest. I have also said the quality of all kenpo is dependant upon the teacher and there are some good ones. 

The we all are learning commercialized crap comment takes in a lot of people, many of whom I have high praise for. Sorry if you feel that way but you cant lie that at my feet. If you think youre learning crap then you need to do something about it, but that didn't come from me. It would appear youre a bit insecure about what you know. That means to me you should study and inquire more and expand your understanding. However, I don't know what you do so I have no comment on that.



> I, sir, for one am growing quite weary of it.



Weary of what? Thinking? Examining? Looking at things a different way and finding something new in what you do? Reading? There are new people here all the time. Some are not from kenpo who come to learn and discuss different ideas, and many others are new to Kenpo. Surely you can't think this forum is a static group of posters and readers, so once we say something that's it. 

People come here all the time and ask questions already answered on other strings. Should they be ignored? But regardless, Im sure Im not affecting your business. I dont do distance students and you are not in my city and you come here voluntarily.

Funny there are some guys who pick fights and never offere anything of value and everybody loves them. I make you think, and you're "tired of it."



> I am not one of those that refuses to see that there is always more to learn, but I too have a business to run. We, in Kenpo, whatever the flavor, all come from the same roots.



That may be true in your eyes, but you want to have it your way.  No, there is no too. I do not have a business to run too,  and I cant see how I impact on your business. 



> To see anyone, much less a senior, bashing or giving the impression of bashing on the art, makes us all look bad.



I don't bash, but sometimes the truth is a hard pill to swallow. Anything that challenges our "beliefs" can be difficult. Im sorry for your impressions or that you feel you look bad, but asking people to think and discuss is what good teachers do.  

The ones that just tell you what you want to hear are not teaching, or just taking your money. Unfortunately a good teacher sometimes tells you things you don't want to hear. Because this is a forum, if you arent interested please ignore the questions or skip over my name, but you cant censor comments to make yourself or your students feel better about what you do. 

In my own education, it was always the teachers that were really hard that I remember and laugh about now. Of course at the time it wasn't funny they were so tough, but those are the ones I really learned from. They challenged me and forced me to think.



> I love my art, as you love yours, I do not discredit you or try to. Why, sir, do you incessantly try and negate what we do?



You see I don't consider our arts "different." Once again thats coming from you, not me. You and your teacher may have a different interpretation. So if I give you information you dont have, or make you think,  than Im bashing? Bashing whom? You? I have dialog with people all the time who dont feel that way. 

My good friend Dennis Conatser provides a different perspective and point of view from his generation of kenpo and he doesnt always agree with me, but he doesnt think I make him "look bad." Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, but I always respect his intelligence and insight. He forces me to think about his perspectives that also have value. 

Does he bash, or are the bashers only people who disagree on certain points? It's kinda like the anons on Kenponet. As long as they give compliments there's no problem, but if they disagree they're attacked for being anon, instead discussing what they had to say.



> My students read this board and I would rather they get more useful information to stimulate their thought processes and to fuel intelligent questions instead of what has the earmarks of propoganda.



Wow, that was a really strong word. If you mean encourage students to always strive for more information and constantly examine what they do and improve, then propaganda it is. So how will your students know the difference? Will you tell them what is useful and what should stimulate them? Do you decide what is propaganda for them or are they allowed to think for themselves? My students think for themselves, and I tell them never to take my word for anything. I ask them to always examine everything for themselves and listen to everybody's perspective, and visit any school any style they want.



> I guess what I am asking, sir, is that you continue with the informative and educational posts, as well as the fun ones, and to quit stirring a pot that is already overdone.



Well were back to who is going to decide what is informative and educational, and how should it be worded and disseminated. Should I send my posts to you and have you edit them for me? Are you going to tell me what is OK and what is not?  Im already doing what I think is informative, but you dont like it. Now what? Maybe the administrator should decide what's reasonable. If I get out of line, I'm sure I'll hear from him. When and If I hear from him, is he bashing?

One of the things you cant do is say  I only want this unless youre willing to censor yourself. Ive never had a teacher who only gave me what I want, when I want, and how I want it, no matter how I interpreted a lesson. 

My teaching style is taken directly from my greatest influnece, Ed Parker. He laughed and joked, then challenged me, made me think, forced me to come up with my own answers, and told me when I was wrong and congratulated me when I was right. Sometimes he even made me think I was wrong when I was right to see if I really believed in my answer and could defend my position. 

Thats what good teachers do  they challenge your status quo. If they dont, how will students learn to think for themselves and grow? Those who dont want to think or grow should not participate.

Bottom line you have to take what you perceive as the good and the bad if you want the good. If you hang in there you might find its all good. I mean you know disrespect but I teach. that's what I do, and I'm fairly good at it.

If you disagree, just skip skip over my name please. I'm fine with that.

Im also sorry you found something so disturbing in Mr. Parkers quote, but you never did share what you thought it might mean, and apparently your interpretation was negative.  At any rate Im not going to change what I do because it makes you uncomfortable. From the volume of my e-mail, many I share information with firmly disagree with you, and are actually grateful for another perspective, even if they don't use it. 

Hey you know I don't even charge them. Maybe you should run my business. 

Things that make you say Hummmmmmm!
Stay loose, "It ain't that serious."


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by tarabos _
> *lol...:rofl:
> 
> i laugh...but it's the sad truth... *



Well I disagree with you. It's only sad that students can't see that on one level it's those differences that are built in to what they were taught. It was and is a part of the genius of Ed Parker. He created a methodology that allowed teachers and students alke to be flexible and effective. 

That flexibility is what made that Kenpo popular. It's not a bad thing. Don't confuse this art, that is supposed to have a self-defense imperative, with traditional arts that are more concerned with the "way" you do things than being effective at what you do.

Just remember that is only the begininng, and there is so much more. Despite the popular belief, there are no young "wise men." :asian:


----------



## tarabos (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Well I disagree with you. It's only sad that students can't see that on one level it's those differences that are built in to what they were taught.*



sounds more like you agree with me...:idunno:  :asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 6, 2003)

ok folks  you have had your little kempo/kenpo  squabble  now lets get back to trying to give your interpatation of what the statement ment.
  To me  he was saying that body structure and athlitic ability makes a diffrence in how we fight against an opponent. That we must learn to flow with what comes at us, no matter if it is long range legs or up close hands.   The 2nd part tells me that after years of practice and experimentation he learned more about himslef and the way he personaly approched a fight.
 just my thoughts
tshadowchaser:asian:


----------



## Wes Idol (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *"Working with others having varying arm and leg lengths, mannerisms, and methods of executing moves proved fruitful.
> It made me aware of the need to learn MOTION thoroughly.
> The ability to protect and hit from any angle thrilled me to know end...
> ...



Mr. C., 

Although the context of these quotes are difficult to follow, as we don't know when he said this, what was he answering and so forth, I will simply respond to what you have posted.

It seems to me his exploration into different aspects of size, speed, methods and angles of attacks sent him down a road that needed full examination of Motion.  I remember in football, we ran drills all over those 100 yards.  By game time so much of the field was as familar as the palm of my hand...spontaneous manuevering became more easily configured in my mind.

The last quote seems more like confidence than anything else.

Lastly, your original post seems fine and good natured...your later posts in this string, to me, seem to be the fire starters.  I will not assume your motives...not without my magic 8 ball.

Hope the sleep is sound.  Say hi to Gabe and his wife.

Respectfully, 

WI, HI
UKS


----------



## Seig (Mar 6, 2003)

I think I need to take this off line with you.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by tshadowchaser _
> *ok folks  you have had your little kempo/kenpo  squabble  now lets get back to trying to give your interpatation of what the statement ment.
> To me  he was saying that body structure and athlitic ability makes a diffrence in how we fight against an opponent. That we must learn to flow with what comes at us, no matter if it is long range legs or up close hands.   The 2nd part tells me that after years of practice and experimentation he learned more about himslef and the way he personaly approched a fight.
> just my thoughts
> tshadowchaser:asian: *



Exactly. People should look at things more objectively and don't take things so personally. The point is at one time Ed Parker focused on "motion" and used that for one aspect of his teachings. 

However he matured beyond that concept and moved to others, while the motion concept continued on. That's why he taught one concept and utilized another personally. My favorite example is the Pak-sao or slapcheck, which he always used, but never wrote about or genrally taught to anyone in the motion concept. 

Instead he replaced it with "positionally check" in his writing, which doesn't exist in his other interpretations. Ed Parker taught multiple concepts. Not good or bad, just think material to keep the mind open for growth.

The quote is from Infinite Insights Volume # 1 page 24 paragraph 2 published 1981. Ed Parker is speaking in the past tense and indicating he left the motion concept, but still saw considerable value in it, and that it worked for him against various opponents and was quite effective at that point in his evolution. The key is understanding there is something beyond motion to strive for.


----------



## Seig (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *I think I need to take this off line with you. *


I sent you a lengthy reply.  I look forward to more discourse.:asian:


----------



## ikenpo (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *The operative phrase is "moved on." And that is why the Parker of old who loved to teach with "motion" didn't move himself  the way he was teaching others. He PAMed, Slapchecked, BAMed, and used nerve strikes among other things. Look at the films and tapes, but don't get too comfortable. *



Doc,

Did SGM Parker ever "define" any of those actions specifically or did you come up with the all of the terminology you speak of? During your teachings what did he actually call these actions as he demonstrated and taught them to you? Finally, when SGM Parker passed I know Edmund had SGM's notes and computer files and shared them with a very few. Were you one of those that he shared them with? And were any of these concepts reflected in those computer files or loose notes? That is, if you were privy to them.

Respectfully, jb :asian:


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Mar 7, 2003)

Hey Doc,
I have a question, which is not meant to start any kind of argument with others ( yeah,,, good luck there... huh!).  What seperates motion based kenpo from NON motion based kenpo?  
I've heard all the history and I know that at some point Parker "commercialized" his art to get it to the masses, or so the story goes (don't know, cause I wasn't there), but what is it that distinguishes one from the other.  Is it simply the application of nerve strikes and contact manipulation?  Or do the seperating principles run far deeper than that?   I've heard plenty about the rampancy of motion kenpo but there hasn't been any sort of definitive explanation of what seperates Motion from non Motion.
Obviously it's not the physical act of moving because without motion we would be like those systema guys trying to harness our psychic energy...   eeeeewwwww  aahhhhh


----------



## Doc (Mar 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Hey Doc,
> I have a question, which is not meant to start any kind of argument with others ( yeah,,, good luck there... huh!).  What seperates motion based kenpo from NON motion based kenpo?
> I've heard all the history and I know that at some point Parker "commercialized" his art to get it to the masses, but what is it that distinguishes one from the other.  Is it simply the application of nerve strikes and contact manipulation?  Or do the seperating principles run far deeper than that? *


*

Night and day. 




			I've heard plenty about the rampancy of motion kenpo but there hasn't been any sort of definitive explanation of what seperates Motion from non Motion.
Obviously it's not the physical act of moving because without motion we would be like those systema guys trying to harness our psychic energy...   eeeeewwwww  aahhhhh
		
Click to expand...

*
Hey, I didn't say that. Send all your hate mail to KenpoYahoo

Obviously "motion" kenpo is based on understanding the concepts of motion. Most cannot even describe what they do without using the word or one its derivatives. Mr. Parker himself in all of his later writings  spoke constantly of "motion," so it really shouldn't be much of a shock to someone that he would use the term "motion-Kenpo" when he was talking to someone he was teaching a different perspective to differentiate from other more common concepts.

At first Parker taught a "technique based" Kenpo when he first came to the mainland. Then he switched to "Chinee Kenpo" when he began studying local Chinese Masters. His last and most popular evolution was  the mass consumption "American Kenpo."

I was taught the "martial science" based Chinese Kenpo perspective that Ed Parker continued to learn and evolve. It requires more knowledge because it is based on hard principles of obscure martial science and is not conceptual at all. It requires a firm understanding of kinesiology, anatomy, traditional Chinese medicine meridians and point locations and application methodology from a martial perspective, etc. Everything is precise and governed by rules of science and is not conceptual nor does it rely on personal preferences so early in a martial career. Basics are strickly anatomically taught with excellent and long lasting results. This forms the basis of internal energy developement. 

Point of information; The definition of "Contact Manipulation" is different in "motion" based Kenpo. Most think of locks and throws. In anatomical Kenpo that is "Control Maniplation" because you exercise full "control." Contact Manipulation only provides a very limited  short duration "control" through contact.

What I teach is Mr. Parker's Chinese Kenpo continued evolution line essentially as he passed it to me. He continued with this as he created and introduced "American Kenpo" to the masses. It also should be of no surprize to anyone who has stuidied Parker on film and video over the years that  Parker personally obviously did things differently than what he was writing. He "slapchecked" while he wrote for others to "positional check." Something he never did himself when he moved. He struck specific "nerves" while writing "punch the ribcage" or "block below the elbow" in the technique manuals. Very general information and non-specific.

That is what was in the quote I posted from Infinite Insights. Parker said he knew how important "motion' was and once he understood it and matured he "changed" and moved on. He used his understanding of "motion" to create his conceptual and most popular version of his art. Al Tracy can tell you that.

No Parker didn't rip you off or sell you garbage. What he did was create a conceptual system that allowed instructor/student flexibility so you could be effective relatively quickly. He couldn't teach anything else because "anatomical" Chinese kenpo requires the instructor to be "hands on" and correct constantly and consistently with strict anatomical not aesthetic knowledge. He was the only one who could do that and he couldn't be everywhere. So if he wanted to proliferate his art, he really had no choice.

In short; "motion versus anatomy." That's why it is possible to execute an extended outward block and have two guys try to bend your arm with no success. Anatomical Basics. Both versions work and have merit depending on whose teaching and student participation. Sheer Ed Parker genius. Mass marker self-defense that is more effective than anything comperable on the market. Sounds like he succeeded to me.


----------



## Doc (Mar 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *So many angles on Kenpo! They're almost different styles. Help out us non-Kenpoka and start giving them different names so we can tell the players apart! *



Technique Based Kenpo, Anatomical Based Kenpo, Motion Based Kenpo in the Parker evolution.

I'm in the middle and I call it SubLevel Four Kenpo. Others still do technique based Kenpo like Chuck Sullivan, Dave Hebler, etc, some do the early stages of Anatomical Based Kenpo like Steve Herring, and most of the "newbies" circa 1970 forward do Motion Based Kenpo.

All of them are effective but are different stages of evolution in the Parker Lineage. There are subcategories because when a student is comfortable with WHAT he has learned, he tends to stick with it. Then the lineage moves to that interpretation under that student and creates students like Dave German who is different still. All the same but all different. that's why a group of peopel can all be in the Parker lineage and all be different. Everyone learned while he was evolving. So when you studied and when you left could determine what you learned, (among other things)

That why I always tell the kenpo people, don't assume everyone does what you do. Be specific in posts.

Got it?


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _*
> How many Ed Paker Black belts does it take to change a light bulb?
> .
> .
> ...



LOL...... now for the real answer....
.
.
.
NONE........ True Ed Parker Black Belts don't change light bulbs........
they instruct the Brown Belts how to keep illumination constant!

:asian:


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2003)

For the record, "Seig" and I resolved our misunderstandings "off forum." 

He is quite a gentlleman, and we both conceded that a forum devoid of face to face contact and voice inflections can lead to misunderstandings on both our parts. 

He has removed the "contract" on me, and I have taken the warrant out of the computer for him. 

Peace reins supreme on MartialTalk and all is well in KenpoLand. Now if those JKD clowns could just cut the crap!


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jbkenpo _
> *Doc,
> 
> Did SGM Parker ever "define" any of those actions specifically or did you come up with the all of the terminology you speak of? *


*

Well actually both. Some he defined but didn't give a name. Some he named but didn't fully explore the definition. And since he's been gone for 12 years, others I had to create from scratch from what he did in my lessons. As a teacher sometimes you can get so caught up in trying to define every little thing you do, that you don't get anything done. That was what made it cool for me. He would use my school like a laboratory, coming by at least once a week when he was around to teach and interact and experiment. That's where I get my "Mad Kenpo Scientist" from. It's one of the many things I called him. He used to "go off" in the lab and bounce us all over the place.

When he brought Tom Grey into the IKKA under me (formally uner Ron Wilstein) and our schools merged, it really gave us more perspectives and bodies to work with. Officially we were "Ed Parker's Kenpo Los Angeles" school code# 10-66RCP-01-




			During your teachings what did he actually call these actions as he demonstrated and taught them to you?
		
Click to expand...


Like I said above, sometimes he would say "do this because..." Sometimes he might use a term like "slapcheck" then the next time he might say "pak sao." Then he would say neither was actually correct and explain what the action really did and why. I was left to extrapolate a lot for myself. Like the name SubLevel Four. He would say, "Let's work on the things that happen at the sub level of distance four." After he was gone I called it "SubLevel Four" but he never did.

In the beginning everything he did was about specific techniques and he talked about what you had to consider and why. He would just break them down, and he would show me why they had to be done a certain way, and explain  them in minute detail.

Then he would talk about specific principles and demonstrate various applications, and display why body mechanics were so important. Some of it seemed just amazingly impossible.

Near the end he was talking about breathing, and mental imaging, and showing how the mind affects the bodies ability to perform any activity. 

He got into Negative and Positive posture and what it did to the body that made it easier to control and made you stronger internally as well as opened and closed nerve cavities. Even a turn of the head and how you do it can have the most profound effect on structural integrity. Truly an almost lost science.




			Finally, when SGM Parker passed I know Edmund had SGM's notes and computer files and shared them with a very few. Were you one of those that he shared them with? And were any of these concepts reflected in those computer files or loose notes? That is, if you were privy to them.
		
Click to expand...


Yes actually I got all of his notes on computer files. But originally at the time he passed (I'm embarassed to say)  I didn't have a computer, and the information was on something called a "Syquest Drive." (sp?) So one of my old black belts who was around when I got those lessons and had access to a syquest took possession of them from Edmund, and archived them for me.

Then Edmund went out of his way to get me started and actually acquired a computer for me. That's when I really was able to really organize my notes and ideas. It really made all the difference in the world, and I gave up my IBM Selectric. (Actually I still have it because it was a gift from Ed Parker Sr.)

Once I had my own computer my student transferred everything to disc for me. Creating and writing my own coursebooks and organizing the "SubLevel Four Kenpo" system has been going on for 15 years. I had no choice because the information and its presentation doesn't exist anywhere else that I know of. I really hope it does, but with Parker it really is hard to say. He taught a lot of people nobody heard of. I saw him take off one day with a large diploma with a 8th on it but I couldn't see the name fully. I think it was for Kalihi Griffin but who knows really? There weren't supposed to be any 8ths but I saw it. What was that all about? 

Anyway as much credit as I give to Ed parker Sr. I do the same for Ed parker Jr. who essentially taught me computers and thereby helped me express myself better and faster. I wish Ed Parker Sr. had, had more time on computers. He would have evolved  more. By the way he would have freaked over the new "Macs." yes he was a "Mac" guy.*


----------



## EL KABONG (Mar 8, 2003)

An old saying holds, "A text without context is a pretext."

Context is everything. The quote really has nothing at all to do with Ed Parker's development of American Kenpo. The paragraphs above and below the one quoted make it clear that he was writing about his time with Chow.

When he writes, "my thinking at that time," he was not referring to his thinking in 1981, 1971, or even 1961 but to his attitudes in the late 1940s. 

The sentence omitted from the middle of the paragraph was: "This knowledge increased my chances of being victorious on the street." indicating that his "thinking at that time" was primarily concerned with street efficiency.

Only a faulty analysis can interpret this as a statement supporting the assertion that there was a so-called "Motion Kenpo" (a term never used by Parker) and some later evolution beyond "motion."

EL KABONG


----------



## arnisador (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *all is well in KenpoLand. Now if those JKD clowns could just cut the crap! *



LOL! Sounds like we have a volunteer peace ambassador, *Doc*?


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by EL KABONG _
> *An old saying holds, "A text without context is a pretext."
> 
> Context is everything. The quote really has nothing at all to do with Ed Parker's development of American Kenpo. The paragraphs above and below the one quoted make it clear that he was writing about his time with Chow.
> ...



Interesting analysis, however you are not in a position to state whether he used the term or not, which he did. You may state you never heard it, but then there are those who actually heard him use it in seminars and have stated before in previous forum exchanges. The missing sentence was indicated in a later post but actually had no bearing on the quote meaning or context.

It is also equally clear that you registered here just so you could make what amounts to an anon comment which you are indeed entitled to do.

At any rate your perspective and interpretation is noted, however I would caution, "never say never."

Say hello to "Boba-Louie."


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *LOL! Sounds like we have a volunteer peace ambassador, Doc? *


Peace ambassador? Oh no! That would be like letting a guy referee his own fight. I nominate the coolest head around. 

The Honorable Right Reverend Bob, Peace Ambassador.

Has a nice ring to it.:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## EL KABONG (Mar 8, 2003)

Doc sez: "however you are not in a position to state whether he used the term or not..."

Perhaps not. But here's another Parker quote. What do you think this means?

On Sep 26, 2002, Ed Parker, Jr. posted on the KenpoNet:

"My father never referred to having a separate art nor did he use the term Motion Kenpo. I am not pointing this out to contradict anyone or anything I have said in the past, I am just saying that my father never used that term."

EL KABONG


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by EL KABONG _
> *Doc sez: "however you are not in a position to state whether he used the term or not..."
> 
> Perhaps not. But here's another Parker quote. What do you think this means?
> ...



My answer doesn't change. He is speaking as you (I presume) from what he personally knows. But Edmund did not attend his Fathers seminars nor was he priveledged to every conversation or lesson he ever had. (If he had been he would have heard some really good jokes). He also made a point to say he 'wasn't contridicting himself, because he used the term before as well. But really so what?

I talked to Edmund about his statement and it is a simple and honest one. He never "heard" his father used the term, and Edmund produced most of his books and he knew Parker never wrote it as well. But the there was a lot Parker didn't write. He slapchecked like crazy but never talked or wrote about it to anyone else "that I know of." But it still exists. Edmund's post was an honest statement.

I've known Edmund since he was a little boy and watched him grow up, and even saw him entertain the notion of driving my car on prom night. I watched him go away to college for 4 years, and I saw his fathers anguish when he left for a 2 year mission for the church, and we both missed him.  When Edmund was growing up I was "Uncle Ron" and still am to his children and he was E.J.

Clearly he could easily have said, "yeah I heard it." to back me up just because we're that close. But he's an honest man who gave an honest answer and he's his own man. Nobody influences him. Nobody.

But I find it curious there are other things he has said and verified as well, that some have chosen to ignore.

I also noticed you ignored what I said about others who had heard Parker use the term at seminars and stated so in other forum exchanges.

My simple suggestion is you not make this so important. I myself only use the term because there are different kenpo concepts, and in mixed company you have to show the philosophical differences. I've even been asked to do that.

So what term would you like? Clearly Kenpo is not practiced the same by everyone. How do we have an honest discussion without parameters to establish the context from which we speak? Because some find it offensive I began quite some time ago calling it "motion based kenpo." that's correct isn't it?

Just because your 'flavor' is the most popular and dominates most discussions, doesn't mean it's the only 'flavor.' Believe it or not, there are Seniors other than me still around who don't do or teach motion based Kenpo. Sorry but it is just a fact.

Motion  
Commercial  
Popular  
Business 
Movie 
Common 
I.I. Kenpo 
Elvis 
Shaolin 
My
Your 
Version OS 9.2 
Whatyou-do 

I dunno. You give it a name, just remember your label cannot include everyone because we know everybody is not the same. Right?

If nothing else I got us another forum registration.  

Hey I want a cut!


----------



## Kenpomachine (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *If nothing else I got us another forum registration.
> 
> Hey I want a cut! *



0/2=0 
Well, you may be can do with C , which is a half 0  

It's clear that not everybody thinks the same things as they get older. And I don't move in kenpo the same way I did 20 years ago... luckily and hard training in between.


----------

