# Things that make you go HMMMM?



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 2, 2003)

It makes me think more and more about what's happening to our art.   It seems odd to me that with all these new improvements people are making to Kenpo ie. new training methods, timing drills, grappling etc. that we would throw away any of what Mr. Parker left us and opt for what some would call an evolved version of Kenpo.     With all these new training methods and information shouldn't we still just be able to make a simple technique like Lone Kimono or any other tech. for that matter work effectively.    It seems people are throwing away the baby with the bath water and it disturbs me.   Shouldn't students be allowed the oppurtunity to make up their own minds about what they need to change or tailor upon completion of the entire system.    At the very least it gives them a chance to contrast information and share with others about the same material.   When you go to school they have a curriculum that's been tested, changed, modified and so forth but the basic curriculum still is and should be reading, writing, and mathematics, the fundamental skills that will allow you to interact on a basic level with others.    If you then choose to improve yourself you go to college, learn new theories, concepts and principles, but primarily building on the same basics, refining them, exploring how they work in different environments.    I don't see any colleges throwing out Analytical Geometry just cuz it's hard or even impossible for many that attempt it, but it's vital to a degree in engineering, and I suspect you probably will never get the degree until you pass the course.   I personally don't won't to be in a car designed by someone who merely graduated from grade school.    Though it may have a spectactular design and be roadworthy, I want some evidence it's going to hold up in a wreck and not kill me or my passengers.

It just appears that so many are attempting to take the easy way out and design new systems without the hard work it takes to be a true engineer of motion.      Me, I'm still working on the Analytical Geometry part, desperately seeking answers to the mysteries of this wonderful art of Kenpo, I may even find it one day and pass the course.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## kenpofist2 (Jul 2, 2003)

Greetings,

     As my career in Kenpo moved on I went under many different instructors.  Most had infused some kind of other art into the system and left huge holes in the Parker cirriculum.  Talking on what Clyde said, I would like to add that as a result of that fusing of arts I was left with some substantial loss in basic principle and concepts.  
     To be fair to those arts that keep the Kenpo system in its pure form and then add other arts as bonus features to there school, those in my opinion have little impact on a students long term growth.  As a person that has been there and experienced an art that was divided, I was never so glad to get to a school outside of my home state that taught pure Kenpo in the Parker System.  After almost 10 years and being involved in Kenpo I found my skill developed well but I wasn't where I could have been if I had spent all that time under my current teacher.
     All this I have said is from my point of view and from my own perspective from my experiences.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 2, 2003)

Once upon a time, they used to teach kids just the 3 'R's:  readin' writin' & 'rithmetic...

Then they added civics, science, foreign languages, art, music, PE, shop, home-ec, etc.  The 3 'R's suffered a bit, but kids had a much more practial real-world education.  

Eventually, they added Driver's education and Sex education.  3 'R's suffered a little more, but kids are better drivers and a few even make good choices about sex.

Time marches on...


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Once upon a time, they used to teach kids just the 3 'R's:  readin' writin' & 'rithmetic...
> 
> Then they added civics, science, foreign languages, art, music, PE, shop, home-ec, etc.  The 3 'R's suffered a bit, but kids had a much more practial real-world education.
> ...



I don't see them going over the Constitution, Declaration of Indepence, or the Emancipation Proclamation, Quantum Physics, or Home Ec.  in Kindergarten.   I reiterate my first point of fundamentals being the basic interaction.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 2, 2003)

I dunno Clyde...my son is learning the alphabet, numbers, art, gravity, cleaning-up, and sharing and he is in pre-school.


----------



## howardr (Jul 2, 2003)

> Once upon a time, they used to teach kids just the 3 'R's: readin' writin' & 'rithmetic...
> 
> Then they added civics, science, foreign languages, art, music, PE, shop, home-ec, etc. The 3 'R's suffered a bit, but kids had a much more practial real-world education.
> 
> ...



I think that illustrates the precise point that Clyde is making. The widespread lack of basic knowledge in gradeschool children in such critical fields as mathematics, grammar, and history not to mention illiteracy is so well documented that it should only need reminding. The result is a whole generation of post-secondary young adults who have a dismal grasp of history, nearly non-existent grammar, etc. Has this always been the case? Oh, no! The truth is it's gotten progressively worse in proportion to the deemphasis on the basics (and their actual active undermining through such disasters as "look-say," "the New Math," "ethnic grammar," "environmental science," etc.) and the introduction of all the awful things that you listed as "progress."

Real education as it used to be taught in this country (and how it is taught to a certain extent still in other countries) is practical while the PC/Progressive garbage that kids spend a great deal of their education on today is not just impractical but disasterous.

Howard


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 2, 2003)

Seems to me Clyde you are scared to death for someone to change Kenpo. Keep in mind they are not trying to change your Kenpo, so why be concerned? If your happy with what you are doing then you are in the right place, dont go anywhere. In my mind you guys have traditionalized EPAK because you are doing it simply because thats the way Mr Parker left it in the books. 

Mr Parker DID change, you sound just like the Tracy's talking about Mr Parker through the years. They couldnt stand what he had done and considered the Parker system a watered down version of Kenpo. I heard this for years and still here it in those circles.

You also seemed to be very caught up in the sequence of movements, god forbid someone come along and apply the equation formula and tailor it to increase the systems function. The principles are what is important not the sequence of movements. If there are sequences that increase the comprehension level of the concepts, principles and theories for students, why not teach it? Isnt that logical? 

There are only 26 letters in the alphabet and out of those letters thousands of words can be made, even more so with the human imagination, any book can be wriiten to tell different stories. Still with only 26 letters in the english alphabet, hundreds of new books are written each new year. In my mind you are saying that no other book should ever be written.

Mr Parker left behind many teachings in how to proceed after he was gone. In fact in my mind he pointed the way and hopefully we as a generation can improve upon what was given to us. Didnt Ed Parker himself do this?

Why did Mr. Parker seek change? Where did all those fancy terms come from in the Encyclopedia? Is that a complete and final list? 

These concepts, principles and theory of movement certainly were there when Mr Parker learned the system. Through the years I believe he developed and  refined how to teach these methods to increase the systems function. 

In some ways maybe Kenpo did die along with Mr Parker because he was always open to new ideas and new ways. When did we become misguided to think that Kenpo as of Decemeber of 1990 was the final product?

Be Good

John

"An ounce of logic can be worth more than a ton of tradition that has become obsolete through the weathering of time."


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 2, 2003)

Anybody ever see a fight that started in one place and moved to several others?  Let's say it started in a bar, then moved to the parking lot, then wound up in another bar, then wound up at somebody's house, then continued at the local jail, etc.?

Anybody ever see a forum topic that started in one thread and then spilled over into several others.  Le'ts say it started in "Disollusioned with Kenpo" spread to "Time to promote the Kenpo Grand Masters"  fell into "Kenpo on the Ground"  escaped to "Kenpo in the 21st Century" and then...  This is definitely something that makes me go HMMMMM?


----------



## jdmills (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Once upon a time, they used to teach kids just the 3 'R's:  readin' writin' & 'rithmetic...
> 
> Then they added civics, science, foreign languages, art, music, PE, shop, home-ec, etc.  The 3 'R's suffered a bit, but kids had a much more practial real-world education.
> ...



It seems to me that is precisely the problem, the basics suffer.  What you end up with is students (be they college students or kenpo students) who can parrot rhetoric (or perform techniques) that have been taught to them but lack a basic understanding of the fundamental reasons why.  It permits performance, sometimes at a high level, but limits the ability for high-level original thought or inovation.

Jim


----------



## Kalicombat (Jul 2, 2003)

Old Fat Kenpoka,
   Why bother training in American Kenpo, ED PARKER's AMERICAN KENPO, if you find it lacking so? Move on to that which interests you. Most people that tout EPAK as their primary art, that I am associated with, are not interested in learning something to supplement it. They are trying to find all they can within the system. You are not going to convert anyone here to throwing on a set of "BadBoy" trunks and rolling around on the deck. Regardless of your opinion, which you are entitled to, my experiences in life have not shown the necessity of abandoning kenpo for BJJ or any other ground fighting system. 
   EPAK practitioners are among if not, THEE most passionate individuals when it comes to their art.  SGM Parker gave us something that is worthy of further investigation. If you want ground work, try EPAK on the ground. I just cant understand why you would come to a KENPO forum and profess how lacking the system is. 
   This groundfighting debate is not going to be solved on this forum or any other. It is a matter of what each individual is seeking as a martial artist. Personally, I can go to the ground, and I can fight from there, however, I do not make it a goal when in a fight. No one should. 

Gary Catherman, Kenpoist


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 2, 2003)

... learn what you will.  I have trained extensively during the past 30 years in several disciplines, including a Tracy derived system for 6 years, then EPAK for the past 17 years.  

I did judo, TKD, & shotokan before finding Kenpo in 1979.  After that I dabbled in Tai Chi, Pa Qua (now Ba Gua), Hung Gar, some Choi Li Fut, and Wally Jay small circle ju-jitsu thrown into the mix.  I have trained with boxers, had Muay Thai Kickboxers in to train and spar with us and worked out and attended classes & seminars in BJJ & JKD.  There are lots of other disciplines I have been exposed to over the years.

Darn it all, I still think Kenpo offers the framework in which to analytically dissect, evaluate, and learn proper motion as applied to the Martial Arts.... regardless of discipline.  Mr. Parker could watch someone from another style, any other style, and offer effective positive criticism regardless of style.  I am sure he would have loved to explore the various facets of Kenpo against a BJJ grappler.  He already did this against Judoka or Ju-Jitsu attacks, not to mention the boxer or TKD guy.  What is to say he would not have continued this with BJJ?  

Now the question is Did he add new techniques against the various other stylist".  My proposition is "NO, he did not", rather he evaluated the Principles, Concepts, and Theories of Motion, as they existed at that time, and TAILORED existing Kenpo techniques to them.  I think that is the point that Clyde, Robert, and myself are trying to make.  

The "Hmmmm..." (Yes continued across numerous threads now, to the exclusion of a lot of forum members probably), is that I see Larry Tatum's students, amongst a host of others, as emulating Mr. Parker.  OFK, you and Fastmover and TOD want to learn techniques outside the system and bring them back in.  Fine, no problemo .... Really!  Others of us want to challenge that paradigm by further exploring the Principles, Concepts, and Theories of applied motion within the Kenpo system ... on the assumption that there is always more to learn, not just refinements ... but things that make you actually go "Hmmm .... Duh .... and Way Cool."

None of us are negating attacks by grapplers, as you clearly defined on another thread, we are just choosing a different paradigm to work in, which you are calling "Traditional".  I am not!  There was very little traditional about Kenpo, and why should you label it that when we continue to explore it's various and myriad facets?

To each his own ... can we move on yet?
  :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *I think that illustrates the precise point that Clyde is making. The widespread lack of basic knowledge in gradeschool children in such critical fields as mathematics, grammar, and history not to mention illiteracy is so well documented that it should only need reminding. The result is a whole generation of post-secondary young adults who have a dismal grasp of history, nearly non-existent grammar, etc. Has this always been the case? Oh, no! The truth is it's gotten progressively worse in proportion to the deemphasis on the basics (and their actual active undermining through such disasters as "look-say," "the New Math," "ethnic grammar," "environmental science," etc.) and the introduction of all the awful things that you listed as "progress."
> 
> Real education as it used to be taught in this country (and how it is taught to a certain extent still in other countries) is practical while the PC/Progressive garbage that kids spend a great deal of their education on today is not just impractical but disasterous.
> ...


Howard,
There you go balming the educators for the social woas that plague our society. It couldn't be that the parents are out scoring crack or modern economics (and tax cuts for the rich) have made it so that both parents are out working instead of home raising there kids. Yea lets pay teachers the least of any proffession;  that will solve things. Lets streamline lower income and minority kids into the prison system like its lower income housing where at least they wont be able to breed. Hey lets cut teachers salaries until they create the stepford children of yesteryear. Its not our responsibity its the fault of educators. wow somehow I now feel less to blame for anything my children might do... its almost like a drug. Thanks I almost felt responible for my children for a minute.


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 2, 2003)

Thanks for the post as it was very insightful.

One thing I have been doing is a little re-search on the subject of change within the Kenpo system by looking at old Parker interviews and such. It has proved very interesting because Mr Parker spoke alot about incorporating methods and ideas to fit the fighting of the day which I believe is what lead him to change. Of course as his skill and knowledge grew over the years, he felt the need to incorporate this into the system. A lesson for us I think. 

Mr Parker said this which fits us all, 

"When it comes down to the end, Parker said, "what is true for one person may not be true for another. The real, truth for both lies in the moment of actual combat." 

Take Care 

John


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Howard,
> There you go balming the educators for the social woas that plague our society. It couldn't be that the parents are out scoring crack or modern economics (and tax cuts for the rich) have made it so that both parents are out working instead of home raising there kids. Yea lets pay teachers the least of any proffession;  that will solve things. Lets streamline lower income and minority kids into the prison system like its lower income housing where at least they wont be able to breed. Hey lets cut teachers salaries until they create the stepford children of yesteryear. Its not our responsibity its the fault of educators. wow somehow I now feel less to blame for anything my children might do... its almost like a drug. Thanks I almost felt responible for my children for a minute. *




kind of interesting.... I can't find a school to hire me... because... get this... I'm OVERQUALIFIED!  How someone can be overqualified to educate children, I have no idea.  However, in a semester, I will have a master's degree... and the schools could pay two non-credentialed teachers for what it would cost them to hire one of me (credential and master's). 

also...kind of interesting to note... the SAT 9 Tests that people are so big about seeing the results of don't match either federal or state education standards.  Teachers are required to teach the standards, but the test doesn't test the standards, in many cases, it tests things that students aren't supposed to be learning until the following grade.  So, either the teacher teaches the standards (and follows state law) and puts his or her job on the line (teachers can now be fired if their students don't perform well) by not teaching what's on the test, or the teacher breaks the law and teaches whats on the test instead of what children are supposed to be learning.

You see, the goal of education isn't to teach children what to think, its to teach them HOW to think, and this isn't so easily measured....  Children don't need to memorize gobs of information...they need to learn how to go out and find that information when they do need it.  Children need a basic, working knowledge of history (who were the major civilizations, and approximately what order chronologically), working knowledge of math (algebra/geometry), and reading and writing skills, and COMPUTER skills.  Children do NOT need to memorize pointless information such as the year the battle of Gallipoli was fought. (ACTUAL SAT 9 question...how many of US could answer that?!)..although knowing which war it was might be helpful.  They do, however, need to know where to go to find that answer...  google is a good place to start... http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/battle_gallipoli.shtml
students need to be taught how to think, and how to come to their own conclusions and find their own answers.

Kenpo, interestingly enough, has followed a similar pattern in some cases...  A school I used to train at got so caught up in the little things (techniques) that they missed the big picture (principles of motion and all that) completely.  The students could parrot back any technique in the book, but had no idea how to actually apply it to anything... they didn't know how to think in kenpo.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 3, 2003)

As one of those, "liberal," educators we hear so much about, let me say this: twice in the last two days, I've heard cops and librarians get on the radio and say something that boils down to this: "You know, it's a little difficult when people demand more and more and more services, and lighter and lighter and lighter taxes."

You try teaching high school English. Can't teach books like, "Huckleberry Finn, " and "Catcher in the Rye," because one nut group after another shows up at the PTA/Board meeting and demands that you be fired. Have to teach, "Romeo and Juliet," but can't mention a) premarital sex, b) gang violence, c) disrespect for parents, d) 'West Side Story.' Can't get students to come to calss, because they're home taking care of their baby...their sex ed class only taught abstinence. Have to write out a stupid Lesson Plan, because the State mandated it. Have 40, 50, 60, 70 kids in each class--you've got 4-6 classes a day--because the State's taxpayers don't wanna pay for new schools, more teachers, even though the stats all say there are more and more kids. Have to worry about a) students loan--under Reagan, they changed the tax regs and interest rates, so you own a ton, b) getting laid off, because the Federal Gov't is spending like a drunken sailor on leave in 1943 and your state's too cheap to keep you on. Enjoy dealing with wacked out, miserable, ill-mannered students whose parents are so busy working their tails off, all the time (gotta keep the country PRODUCTIVE) that they're never home to see their kids (and stressed out, when they are)...I could continue, but--getting the picture? 

Oh, I left out one--every other time you turn on the radio or TV, you have to put up with assorted yahoos screaming about your salary being too high, or your union beeing too strong, or your politics being too liberal, or your general incompetence...all this and more is why I don't teach high school.

We are too damned cheap and short-sighted, in brief, to pay for teaching teachers decently (no, not training them) and good schools. 

Sorry to yell-I often try to be more polite--but that nonsense just gets my goat. Please don't respond. let's all just take this as a meaningless tirade written in response to another meaningless tirade, and move on...

Oh yeah..it'll be good if our screaming spills over onto all the other threads, until we all form one big ball of waxy argument...it's the only hope of unifying kenpo...


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 3, 2003)

and a nice rant Robert, I really wish it were not so true.


----------



## RCastillo (Jul 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *and a nice rant Robert, I really wish it were not so true. *



Well, like the news commentator, Paul Harvey is used to saying, "So you won't run out of things to worry about."

I'm a teacher also (22 yrs), and a former coach. I hear ya!

Stay tuned, there's more trouble ahead.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 3, 2003)

Michael:  My advocacy of change does not include abandoning Kenpo principles and concepts.  It revolves around refocusing on some attacks that were not covered and spending more time on "alive" training and less time on pre-arranged training drills.  I think that Kenpo principles are one of the greatest strengths of the art.  Principles are basic truths that should remain fairly constant over a very long time period.  But, principles need to be applied and the applications need to remain current.

Robert:  Being a high-school teacher sucks.  In addition to all the stuff you mentioned, you have to deal with teenagers and all of their problems -- I know I was a problem teenager and it was Kenpo that straightened me out.

Everybody:  I have a whole bunch of strong opinions on everything.  Thank you for reading them, discussing them, embracing them, rejecting them, responding to them, and continuing the process of mutual education that is a key benefit of forum participation.


----------



## kenpofist2 (Jul 3, 2003)

Greeting OFK,

I too had a fairly "interesting" young life, and thanks to the grace of God I found Kenpo which helped me on a path of respect and decipline.  It easy to lay and wait for something to happen, but it takes tanacity to effect change in your life.

:asian:


----------



## howardr (Jul 3, 2003)

> Howard,
> There you go balming the educators for the social woas that plague our society. It couldn't be that the parents are out scoring crack or modern economics (and tax cuts for the rich) have made it so that both parents are out working instead of home raising there kids. Yea lets pay teachers the least of any proffession; that will solve things. Lets streamline lower income and minority kids into the prison system like its lower income housing where at least they wont be able to breed. Hey lets cut teachers salaries until they create the stepford children of yesteryear. Its not our responsibity its the fault of educators. wow somehow I now feel less to blame for anything my children might do... its almost like a drug. Thanks I almost felt responible for my children for a minute.



I'd say that you are making several unwarranted assumptions here. No where did I blame educators (which you seem to be equating with teachers themselves) for THE social woes plaguing our society. Where did I say that? I was merely pointing out that some of our current problems in education stem from both the content and methodology in our school systems. You really unreasonably stretched my point to your own liking.

Does my point necessarily require that the primary fault lie with the teachers themselves? No, it does not. Could it be the fault of some of the teachers? Perhaps. Possibly it is the fault of certain teachers but not fundamentally the teachers at the lower end of the educational totem pole. As to the source, I'd be looking more at the vanguards of these social movements - the theoreticians of the PC nonsense that usually reside in the ivory towers of our universities and think tanks.

As for the rest of your post, it strikes me as smacking with a twinge of envy (especially the part decrying supposed tax cuts for the rich). Maybe you should consider the IRS figures from the year 2000. According to the IRS, the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers pay 37% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers pay 96% of all income taxes. Thus, the least wealthy 50% pay next to nothing. Under Bush's tax plan everyone who PAYS taxes gets a tax cut. But Democrats decry this as a tax cut for the rich with the implication being that those who don't pay federal income taxes should get a tax cut! In other words, those that don't pay any taxes should by that fact receive more money from those that do. By this means, according to Democratic logic, anyone (or family) making more than $27,000 year has ascended to the upper eschelons of the rich. What a bunch of envious garbage.

You say these problems are our responsibility not the teachers. Well, who the heck are the teachers? Are they not equally members of our society? Or do you think they are some separate class that exists apart from the rest us? You wouldn't happen to be in college would you (or maybe a recent graduate)? Your bizarre theories about how the world works coincides perfectly with what is taught in the typical humanities class in our beloved universities.

Howard


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 3, 2003)

Something that makes me go HMMMM? is a thread with a title that is so vague it is impossible to wander off topic.


----------



## howardr (Jul 3, 2003)

> You see, the goal of education isn't to teach children what to think, its to teach them HOW to think, and this isn't so easily measured.... Children don't need to memorize gobs of information...they need to learn how to go out and find that information when they do need it. Children need a basic, working knowledge of history (who were the major civilizations, and approximately what order chronologically), working knowledge of math (algebra/geometry), and reading and writing skills, and COMPUTER skills. Children do NOT need to memorize pointless information such as the year the battle of Gallipoli was fought. (ACTUAL SAT 9 question...how many of US could answer that?!)..although knowing which war it was might be helpful. They do, however, need to know where to go to find that answer... google is a good place to start... http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/ww...gallipoli.shtml
> students need to be taught how to think, and how to come to their own conclusions and find their own answers.



Here is where I disagree with you. This is precisely the sort of problem I'm concerned about in modern education.

I think it is the job of education to teach children WHAT to think. The fundamental point is that without the WHAT there is no HOW. To take a simple example: try teaching a child HOW to solve algebra problems without first having them memorize the multiplication tables (the WHAT in this case). I certainly would not quarrel with the idea that children should be taught HOW to think. However, I think that the only way to do that, so that they can REALLY think on their own, is to first provide them with a host of facts (the WHAT) that they can use a substratum of data from which to draw, figure things out, and against which to analyze new ideas or claims. Children need to learn (yes, memorize in many instances!) a whole library of basic knowledge before they will be equiped to start thinking on their own. Otherwise, their "thinking" will amount to little more than emotional declarations in the guise of thought. In sum, there cannot be a HOW in a vacuum without first the basic data (the WHAT) with which children can eventually be taught HOW to think.

Howard


----------



## howardr (Jul 3, 2003)

> You try teaching high school English. Can't teach books like, "Huckleberry Finn, " and "Catcher in the Rye," because one nut group after another shows up at the PTA/Board meeting and demands that you be fired. Have to teach, "Romeo and Juliet," but can't mention a) premarital sex, b) gang violence, c) disrespect for parents, d) 'West Side Story.' Can't get students to come to calss, because they're home taking care of their baby...their sex ed class only taught abstinence. Have to write out a stupid Lesson Plan, because the State mandated it. Have 40, 50, 60, 70 kids in each class--you've got 4-6 classes a day--because the State's taxpayers don't wanna pay for new schools, more teachers, even though the stats all say there are more and more kids. Have to worry about a) students loan--under Reagan, they changed the tax regs and interest rates, so you own a ton, b) getting laid off, because the Federal Gov't is spending like a drunken sailor on leave in 1943 and your state's too cheap to keep you on. Enjoy dealing with wacked out, miserable, ill-mannered students whose parents are so busy working their tails off, all the time (gotta keep the country PRODUCTIVE) that they're never home to see their kids (and stressed out, when they are)...I could continue, but--getting the picture?



Hey Robert,

I certainly can't disagree with you that State education is the absolute pits!

Howard


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 3, 2003)

Dear Howard:

As one of those so-called 'ivory tower," PC types (I actually teach in small working-class colleges, and have for the last...oh...fifteen years, and grew up without a lot of money--but that never slows you folks down, does it?) responsible for The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody (Will Cuppy's book..still funny), I say this:

Piffle. Balderdash. Stuff and nonsense. Fiddlesticks. Claptrap. 

You do not know what you're talking about, and you won't be bothered to learn. 

Either you don't teach, or you're one of those guys who always sits there in department meetings, furious, worried that somewhere, somehow, some smartass might be teaching something you don't personally approve of. 

As for the argument about the savage mistreatment of the upper middle class and wealthy in America--hilarious! Classic! It's always good to see the attack on PC, on teachers, on kids, followed up by a paean to Capitalism Set Free, which would solve all the problems if we'd only let it. The syndrome always appears full-blown.

Howard, go read: George Gilder, "Sexual Suicide;" Dinesh d'Souza, "Ill-Liberal Education;" Roger Kimball's essays on this topic in "The American Spectator;" Ann Coulter's columns. Read the moral teachings of William Bennett. Hey, there's Gertrude Himmelfarb. They'll all tell you EXACTLY what you want to hear, and you won't have to deal with reality a bit.

Anybody who's actually interested in the topic? I recommend Jonathan Kozol, "Savage Inequalities;" Richard Ohmann, "English in America;" Robert Scholes' latest book (full disclosure: he was my dissertation advisor) on the nature of the profession of English.

Oh. When you respond, Howard, be sure to attack my education as PC. Be sure to write things such as, "Yes, you liberals...." Throw in some stuff about my being a flag-hater, and about how people like me are destroying this once-great country. Write about all the money we're wasting on sex ed and gay liberation and bilingual ed and moral relativism. Be sure to include a remark or two on how I don't realize this is The Greatest Country On Earth, and how I should just go teach in China if'n I don't like it. I feel sure you'll even be able to work in something about my support for Saddam Hussein...

Just FYI, the good old days? I was there, goin' to school. Back when we prayed, every day, the Lord's Prayer...forced to. And recited the Pledge...forced to. And kids still got paddled. And the Kennedys were hated because they were Catholics. And we never, never, never had to deal with minorities...because the schools were segregated. Ah, traditional education...

I will now shut up on this silly topic, having said mah piece.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 3, 2003)

I thought this was a Kenpo forum?  The education discussion started as an analogy to compare focusing on current Kenpo principles vs. adding stuff from other styles.  How did we wind up arguing about taxes and such?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 3, 2003)

Uh...because I'm an idiot, too easily baited into hopeless discussions?


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 3, 2003)

Hit the nail on the head that time, so how does this apply to the current  interregnum in Kenpo currently?  I can think of several ways it might.

Another Idiot, striving to be a moron.


----------



## howardr (Jul 3, 2003)

> As one of those so-called 'ivory tower," PC types (I actually teach in small working-class colleges, and have for the last...oh...fifteen years, and grew up without a lot of money--but that never slows you folks down, does it?) responsible for The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody (Will Cuppy's book..still funny), I say this:
> 
> Piffle. Balderdash. Stuff and nonsense. Fiddlesticks. Claptrap.
> 
> ...



Dear Robert,

Your post really gave me a big smile and a good belly laugh. As much as I disagree with you, you do have a funny, clever way of writing coupled with some absolutely pithy zingers.  I suppose you should be so verbally adroit being a professional English teacher. Thanks!

Admittedly, I am not a teacher. I'm not sure why that immediately disqualifies my judgment on this subject (though you seem to think as much). While not choosing the path of teaching professionally, I've both gone to graduate school in the humanities and have many friends that are professors and secondary school instructors (not to mention a number of graduate students that I am friendly with). So, with this background and a fairly voracious appetite for reading, I think my conclusions are sound. While you may like to believe I'm merely parroting "right-wing" claptrap, in fact, I've inductively arrived at my conclusions via my own independent experiences and judgment.

It might surprise you to know that I don't care for Gilder; think that d'Souza has some good points; Kimball isn't too shabby; not a huge fan of Coulter (really having bothered investigating her too much); and can't stand Bennett.

Finally, I thought your last 3 paragraphs equally hillarious. But, I must say, I think you have me pegged incorrectly. At least half of your caricature of me is absolutely off the mark. Sorry to disappoint. 

Howard


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 3, 2003)

Sorry, shan't bandy further.


----------



## Guiseppe Betri (Jul 4, 2003)

Robert-

Are you the one with the school in Sedro-Wooley, WA, Skagit Kenpo Karate?  I was just curious, my sister lives in Bellingham and I've traveled to that part of the country several times.  

Guiseppe Betri


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 4, 2003)

No, not at all...I hereby absolve the poor guy from my failings.


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *It makes me think more and more about what's happening to our art.   It seems odd to me that with all these new improvements people are making to Kenpo ie. new training methods, timing drills, grappling etc. that we would throw away any of what Mr. Parker left us and opt for what some would call an evolved version of Kenpo.     With all these new training methods and information shouldn't we still just be able to make a simple technique like Lone Kimono or any other tech. for that matter work effectively.    It seems people are throwing away the baby with the bath water and it disturbs me.   Shouldn't students be allowed the oppurtunity to make up their own minds about what they need to change or tailor upon completion of the entire system.    At the very least it gives them a chance to contrast information and share with others about the same material.   When you go to school they have a curriculum that's been tested, changed, modified and so forth but the basic curriculum still is and should be reading, writing, and mathematics, the fundamental skills that will allow you to interact on a basic level with others.    If you then choose to improve yourself you go to college, learn new theories, concepts and principles, but primarily building on the same basics, refining them, exploring how they work in different environments.    I don't see any colleges throwing out Analytical Geometry just cuz it's hard or even impossible for many that attempt it, but it's vital to a degree in engineering, and I suspect you probably will never get the degree until you pass the course.   I personally don't won't to be in a car designed by someone who merely graduated from grade school.    Though it may have a spectactular design and be roadworthy, I want some evidence it's going to hold up in a wreck and not kill me or my passengers.
> 
> It just appears that so many are attempting to take the easy way out and design new systems without the hard work it takes to be a true engineer of motion.      Me, I'm still working on the Analytical Geometry part, desperately seeking answers to the mysteries of this wonderful art of Kenpo, I may even find it one day and pass the course.
> ...



Changes come in all shapes and sizes.  You can't expect a 5 yo child, a 5'0, 100lb woman, and a 6'5, 230lb man to all do the tech the same way.  Therefore, you must make a change. The 5'0 woman is not going to reach the 6'5 man in the neck, so she will have to adapt the tech and make it work for her.  The poster who said that the same topic goes from 1 thread to another is 100% correct.  Its the same thing, just colored differently.  

You mention new drills, etc.  Whats wrong with that?  Fastmover was correct in his post by saying that there are way too many people that are sooooo afraid of a change.  Do we never buy new clothes?  Do we never buy a new car?  Do we never go to a different place to eat?  Do we eat the same food for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day?  Of course not, so why not make a change?

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> *Seems to me Clyde you are scared to death for someone to change Kenpo. Keep in mind they are not trying to change your Kenpo, so why be concerned? If your happy with what you are doing then you are in the right place, dont go anywhere. In my mind you guys have traditionalized EPAK because you are doing it simply because thats the way Mr Parker left it in the books.
> 
> Mr Parker DID change, you sound just like the Tracy's talking about Mr Parker through the years. They couldnt stand what he had done and considered the Parker system a watered down version of Kenpo. I heard this for years and still here it in those circles.
> ...



My thoughts and feelings are the same!  EXCELLENT POST FASTMOVER!!!


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kalicombat _
> *Old Fat Kenpoka,
> Why bother training in American Kenpo, ED PARKER's AMERICAN KENPO, if you find it lacking so? Move on to that which interests you. Most people that tout EPAK as their primary art, that I am associated with, are not interested in learning something to supplement it. They are trying to find all they can within the system. You are not going to convert anyone here to throwing on a set of "BadBoy" trunks and rolling around on the deck. Regardless of your opinion, which you are entitled to, my experiences in life have not shown the necessity of abandoning kenpo for BJJ or any other ground fighting system.
> EPAK practitioners are among if not, THEE most passionate individuals when it comes to their art.  SGM Parker gave us something that is worthy of further investigation. If you want ground work, try EPAK on the ground. I just cant understand why you would come to a KENPO forum and profess how lacking the system is.
> ...



I think that we all realize that there are many, many die-hard Kenpoists on this forum.  I don't think that anyone is trying to say forget about Kenpo and do BJJ.  In other threads, we have discussed the pros and cons of the art, and like OFK said, it spills over and over and over.  Kenpo was my first art.  After 17 yrs, I still train it.  If I didn't like it, I would have stopped a long time ago.  Kenpo is not the end all of combat.  If there was one art that was the best, then there would only be 1 school, and everybody would be learning the best art.  What we are trying to say, is that there are always things to add and make better.  Didn't Parker himself modify that art from what he learned from his Inst.?  Of course he did.  He wanted to make it more adaptable for the street.  However, things change with the times.   I think the question we should ask now is, "What has been added, changed, etc. to make it better?"

Once again, nobody said that  BJJ is the ultimate art.  What we are saying, is that having even a basic understanding of the ground, might save your life if you end up there.  Where do women end up if they are getting raped?  On their back on the ground.  I would want my wife or daughter to be able to escape from the bottom, get back to her feet, where she can deliver a strike, or run!

Mike


----------



## Kalicombat (Jul 4, 2003)

> . However, things change with the times



What kind of things that one of us may encounter in the "streets" are so different now, then when SGM Parker was formulating his American Kenpo? The same evils of society that plagued the US back then are still there today. Gangs with guns are more prevailant now, but few kenpo techniques are going to stop a drive by. Drug induced scum bags have been around along time, only back then, LSD was more in the forefront then it is today. Today, crack is the biggest drug that we may encounter some one being on. At least here in Texas, theres not a whole lot of "grapplers" lurking around in the shadows, waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting victim with an arm bar. Truth is, combat in the street, which does not include angry drunks staring one another down until a punch flies, is not all that different now, then it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. People carried knives back then, just like they do now. Street Combat is different from street fighting. If Im at the ATM, and some dirtbag tries to jack me for my cash, wallet, car, etc..., he's gonna do a hit and run type attack. Then you better be prepared for it. Its not gonna be a Hollywood version. Its gonna be fast, hard, and with the bad intent. Thwarting that attack with extreme prejudice is combat. Stopping him with whatever means available, thats combat. 
    Your point about a women getting raped is valid, but, chances are, she's going to fend off the perpetrator with head butts, gouges, scratches, bites, pokes, hairpulls, keys, pen,  etc.... all of which are not legal in your fantasy world of UFC's and MMA events.  The Gracies, and other BJJ officionados thrust the groundfighting craze to the forefront, helped along the way by all the martial arts mags, and all the while, they've wheeled their barrells to the bank to cash in on the craze. Just because it is popular does not make it anymore valid as a self defense alternative.  There is nothing new in BJJ, its still Jujitsu, been around along time, just like Greco-Roman wrestling, Judo, and 8 year old kids fending off a bigger stronger bully. 
    People like the Shamrocks have done more positive for groundfighting craze then the Gracies, because of the level of fitness they have taken their fighters to. Royce Gracie won because the fantasy was designed by the Gracies, around their system.  Throw a lead pipe, mop handle, busted beer bottle into the equation, and you've deflated the over-hyped  fantasy of triangle chokes and ankle locks.  My reccomendation for fighting a grappler. Always carry a bag of tacks, or of broken glass. When confronted by a BJJ perpetrator, spread the contents on the ground and stand in the middle of the pattern. Then beat the snot out of them with your useless kenpo strikes and kicks.

Gary Catherman, Kenpoist


----------



## LoneWolfandCub (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kalicombat _
> *My reccomendation for fighting a grappler. Always carry a bag of tacks, or of broken glass. When confronted by a BJJ perpetrator, spread the contents on the ground and stand in the middle of the pattern. Then beat the snot out of them with your useless kenpo strikes and kicks.
> 
> Gary Catherman, Kenpoist *



Sounds like a hard-core match Mick Foley style! Good Idea! The lay on the ground in the middle of something horrid is a fantasy, Ive never been able to grapple with anyone willingly wihout striking the piss out of them first!


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kalicombat _
> *What kind of things that one of us may encounter in the "streets" are so different now, then when SGM Parker was formulating his American Kenpo? The same evils of society that plagued the US back then are still there today. Gangs with guns are more prevailant now, but few kenpo techniques are going to stop a drive by. Drug induced scum bags have been around along time, only back then, LSD was more in the forefront then it is today. Today, crack is the biggest drug that we may encounter some one being on. At least here in Texas, theres not a whole lot of "grapplers" lurking around in the shadows, waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting victim with an arm bar. Truth is, combat in the street, which does not include angry drunks staring one another down until a punch flies, is not all that different now, then it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. People carried knives back then, just like they do now. Street Combat is different from street fighting. If Im at the ATM, and some dirtbag tries to jack me for my cash, wallet, car, etc..., he's gonna do a hit and run type attack. Then you better be prepared for it. Its not gonna be a Hollywood version. Its gonna be fast, hard, and with the bad intent. Thwarting that attack with extreme prejudice is combat. Stopping him with whatever means available, thats combat.
> Your point about a women getting raped is valid, but, chances are, she's going to fend off the perpetrator with head butts, gouges, scratches, bites, pokes, hairpulls, keys, pen,  etc.... all of which are not legal in your fantasy world of UFC's and MMA events.  The Gracies, and other BJJ officionados thrust the groundfighting craze to the forefront, helped along the way by all the martial arts mags, and all the while, they've wheeled their barrells to the bank to cash in on the craze. Just because it is popular does not make it anymore valid as a self defense alternative.  There is nothing new in BJJ, its still Jujitsu, been around along time, just like Greco-Roman wrestling, Judo, and 8 year old kids fending off a bigger stronger bully.
> People like the Shamrocks have done more positive for groundfighting craze then the Gracies, because of the level of fitness they have taken their fighters to. Royce Gracie won because the fantasy was designed by the Gracies, around their system.  Throw a lead pipe, mop handle, busted beer bottle into the equation, and you've deflated the over-hyped  fantasy of triangle chokes and ankle locks.  My reccomendation for fighting a grappler. Always carry a bag of tacks, or of broken glass. When confronted by a BJJ perpetrator, spread the contents on the ground and stand in the middle of the pattern. Then beat the snot out of them with your useless kenpo strikes and kicks.
> ...



Whats different.  Well, I guess Parker thought that there must have been something different when he was learning, because he made changes.  How about making the training a little more "alive", by adding some resistance to the attacks, and more movement.  Compare some training methods of some other people to those of Kenpo and maybe you'll see a difference.

Nothing new in Jujitsu?  And how would you know?  And a poke, gouge, and headbutt is your answer to grappling for a woman?  I wonder how many of us actually go outside to train instead of on the nice soft mat.  How many of us train in the clothes that we wear every day?  Its a big difference even for the Kenpoist to train outside.  Your footing is going to be much different on pavement, grass, dirt.

No fantasy about the Gracies.  They set up a no time limit, pit one style against the other fight to see who was better.  As for the Shamrocks, yes, they are in good shape, but are you telling me that none of the other BJJ fighters are not in good shape? So are you telling me that just because they are in better shape, that makes them a better fighter?  NO, its the skill that makes the fighter also!

Once again, you're talking about a beer bottle, pipes, etc.  Listen closely to this.....its only something I've said 100 times already...I never said that you had to roll on the ground for 30 min with the attacker.  Having the knowledge to get back to your feet is an important thing though.

And while attempting the strikes and kicks, dont forget to do your best to avoid that clinching that we all work so hard on.

You also mention Hollywood type attacks.  Well, maybe you can answer this question for me.  I was watching Larry Tatums Mass Attack tape.  In the beginning, you see him fighting mult attackers....yup, one at a time.  During the actual inst. he goes on to gradually position the attackers according to his set movements, saying that when he does this move, then this will happen, and prevent that attacker from doing this, etc.  How can you predict a mult person fight?  You talk about Hollywood.  Well, in a real mult attacker fight, they will not be attacking 1 at a time, it will be 2 or 3 at a time.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

To reiterate my "aliveness" statement---read that thread in the JKD section of this forum.  It will explain things a little more clearer.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2003)

I'm curious, Mike--who was your main kenpo instructor?


----------



## Seig (Jul 5, 2003)

I am only going to say this once.  The UFC was and is a load of crap.  The Gracie HYPE is crap.  They never pitted one _system_ against another _system_, they pitted men against men, period.  When Royce won his first UFCs he did so because he was physically better prepared to do so.  Was it because BJJ was superior to Kenpo? No, Royce was a better fighter than Keith, end of discussion.  In that same vein, Keith beat the hell out of a guy three times his size and broke his hand doing so. Why?  Because he was the better fighter.  When any trained fighter is allowed to do so in his own element, he has the advantage.  People, hype is hype, not reality.  The Gracie family has produced some world class athletes, as have the Machados, it's what they train for and gear towards.  Could I get in the ring with one of them, probably not, I'm not a competition fighter.  Can I level the average street punk?  History says, yes.  That's what I train for and that's what I teach.  I hate to say this, because it goes against my nature to agree with DocD), it's not the system, it's the instruction.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *I am only going to say this once.  The UFC was and is a load of crap.  The Gracie HYPE is crap.  They never pitted one system against another system, they pitted men against men, period.  When Royce won his first UFCs he did so because he was physically better prepared to do so.  Was it because BJJ was superior to Kenpo? No, Royce was a better fighter than Keith, end of discussion.  In that same vein, Keith beat the hell out of a guy three times his size and broke his hand doing so. Why?  Because he was the better fighter.  When any trained fighter is allowed to do so in his own element, he has the advantage.  People, hype is hype, not reality.  The Gracie family has produced some world class athletes, as have the Machados, it's what they train for and gear towards.  Could I get in the ring with one of them, probably not, I'm not a competition fighter.  Can I level the average street punk?  History says, yes.  That's what I train for and that's what I teach.  I hate to say this, because it goes against my nature to agree with DocD), it's not the system, it's the instruction. *



Seig--Very good post, and yes, you do make alot of valid points.  Just a few questions for you, in you would not mind answering them for me.  

In regards to the fighters in the UFC.  You mentioned pitting man vs. man.  How do you figure?  You had fighters from all backgrounds... Judo, Savate, Kung-Fu, Sumo, etc.  Isn't that 1 style against another?

In regards to the skill level.  You said that you are not a competition fihgter, and I respect that, but don't  you think, that if any of these UFC style fighters got into a fight on the street, that they would not be able to defend themselves and fight good?

As for grappling not being better?  In the first few fights, you had very few if any good grapplers.  By taking a grappler and pitting him against a striker, it did show the importance of learning the ground game. Granted, there were rules prohibiting certain things..groin shots, eye shots...all of which are valid on the street.  But, don't you think that the grappler is capable of doing these strikes also?  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to eye gouge.

As for the fighter vs. the inst.  I agree with you 100%.  I have said this before.  There is something to learn from every style.  However, you're right.  It is the student that is learning the material and learns how to properly apply it, that will be the better person.  

Mike


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 5, 2003)

"Where skill ends, guts and conditioning take over"...

Where have I heard that before?:deadhorse


----------



## Seig (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Seig--Very good post, and yes, you do make alot of valid points.  Just a few questions for you, in you would not mind answering them for me.
> 
> In regards to the fighters in the UFC.  You mentioned pitting man vs. man.  How do you figure?  You had fighters from all backgrounds... Judo, Savate, Kung-Fu, Sumo, etc.  Isn't that 1 style against another?*


Absolutely not, a style is a personal interpretation of a *SYSTEM*.  The systems were not fighting each other, the competitors were.


> *
> In regards to the skill level.  You said that you are not a competition fihgter, and I respect that, but don't  you think, that if any of these UFC style fighters got into a fight on the street, that they would not be able to defend themselves and fight good?*


I have very little doubt that a good number of those men would be able to defend themselves and do it well on the street.  However, the average person, and most of my students are average people, does not train for a cage match. 


> *
> As for grappling not being better?  In the first few fights, you had very few if any good grapplers.  By taking a grappler and pitting him against a striker, it did show the importance of learning the ground game. Granted, there were rules prohibiting certain things..groin shots, eye shots...all of which are valid on the street.  But, don't you think that the grappler is capable of doing these strikes also?  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to eye gouge.*


What you have stated here is true.  But using that same logic, a good wrestler would also necessarily be a good fighter.  Now, if  you have studied any kind of Jiu-Jitsu, you know that is flawed because what the wrestler is taught as fundamental the Jiu-Jitsu trained person is taught is anathema; ie, turtleing when in trouble.  What is important about being a good fighter, wether stand up or ground, is having a strong set of base skills you use well.  A point that several here have touched on but not really followed up on is this, whatever you do, you have to be comfortable doing it, or you will fail.  Anyone can groin shot or eye gouge, as you said, but what makes the strike the most effective is the timing of the shot.  The other important thing to really remember is this, MOST attackers do not want to be tied up with someone for any length of time.  They want to get in and out.  In short, they want easy victims.  The solution here is to not make yourself look or act like a victim.



> *As for the fighter vs. the inst.  I agree with you 100%.  I have said this before.  There is something to learn from every style.  However, you're right.  It is the student that is learning the material and learns how to properly apply it, that will be the better person.
> 
> Mike *


I think every instructor here will agree with that last statement.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

Seig- Thanks for the reply!  One thing though, in regards to the fighters not being capable of fighting on the street.  While there are rules in the cage, and none on the street, I'm sure that these individuals are still able to fight.  I train with an Inst in Ct. that has a very successful school.  He mostly offers Filipino MA.  He also has a very big interest in NHB, and he currently trains people at his school to fight in these events.  Now, I'm only speaking on what I have seen, not every MMA fihgter.  This individual has alot of fihgt experience and I have no doubt in my mind, that if he got into a fight on the street, that he would have much trouble.  I would be happy to post his web site address, so you could see for yourself.

Mike


----------



## Seig (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Seig- Thanks for the reply!  One thing though, in regards to the fighters not being capable of fighting on the street.  While there are rules in the cage, and none on the street, I'm sure that these individuals are still able to fight.  I train with an Inst in Ct. that has a very successful school.  He mostly offers Filipino MA.  He also has a very big interest in NHB, and he currently trains people at his school to fight in these events.  Now, I'm only speaking on what I have seen, not every MMA fihgter.  This individual has alot of fihgt experience and I have no doubt in my mind, that if he got into a fight on the street, that he would have much trouble.  I would be happy to post his web site address, so you could see for yourself.
> 
> Mike *


Mike,
Re-read, I did not say they could not fight.  I said I doubted that most of them would have any trouble defending themselves.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

Yup--My bad.  

MS


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *I'd say that you are making several unwarranted assumptions here. No where did I blame educators (which you seem to be equating with teachers themselves) for THE social woes plaguing our society. Where did I say that? I was merely pointing out that some of our current problems in education stem from both the content and methodology in our school systems. You really unreasonably stretched my point to your own liking.
> 
> Does my point necessarily require that the primary fault lie with the teachers themselves? No, it does not. Could it be the fault of some of the teachers? Perhaps. Possibly it is the fault of certain teachers but not fundamentally the teachers at the lower end of the educational totem pole. As to the source, I'd be looking more at the vanguards of these social movements - the theoreticians of the PC nonsense that usually reside in the ivory towers of our universities and think tanks.
> ...


Howard, 
No, I'm not in school right now but I did graduate about five years ago if that is what you call "recent". Let me make a guess about you...  I'll bet you listen to a lot of AM Talk radio. Al Franken has a lot of interesting things to say about those types of people but one thing is for sure is that they feel as if they are the most well informed when in fact they are the most ill-informed group of people. I fancied working in criminal justice for a while and took intro to corrections an intro to juevenile justice. We were force fed lots of empirical data about whom is being arrested and for what. Also, we were told why things work the way they do and why the problems that exist are so hard to solve. I know the words "liberal propaganda" are already forming on your lips so I won't take up to much of your time. Your talk of "ivory towers" and the evils of education smack of fear. You would rather see public education destroyed than fixed. Teachers get payed almost nothing. Is that a myth comming from the "Ivory Towers"?  NO!
So the Teachers aren't lock stepping with the current right wing fanatisisms. So what? Why the rich have you fighting so valiantly for there cause is what perplexes me. I guess telling us to not trust education is their first step.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2003)

Oh, hell. I'm pretty much agreeing with a guy who claims to live in a trailer park.

To quote David Byrne, "Here comes the twister."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 8, 2003)

If it makes you feel any better, its a manufactured home park.


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Anybody ever see a fight that started in one place and moved to several others?  Let's say it started in a bar, then moved to the parking lot, then wound up in another bar, then wound up at somebody's house, then continued at the local jail, etc.?
> *



Wasn't that an old Clint Eastwood Movie??


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 8, 2003)

Actually, the incident I'm thinking about was a manufacturing supervisor who attacked one of his employees at the last party that the company ever served alcohol.  Amazing thing is that the supervisor didn't get fired and nobody got sued.  Ahh...all the stuff we used to be able to get away with in the 80's...


----------



## howardr (Jul 8, 2003)

Touch'O'Death wrote:



> Howard,
> No, I'm not in school right now but I did graduate about five years ago if that is what you call "recent". Let me make a guess about you... I'll bet you listen to a lot of AM Talk radio. Al Franken has a lot of interesting things to say about those types of people but one thing is for sure is that they feel as if they are the most well informed when in fact they are the most ill-informed group of people. I fancied working in criminal justice for a while and took intro to corrections an intro to juevenile justice. We were force fed lots of empirical data about whom is being arrested and for what. Also, we were told why things work the way they do and why the problems that exist are so hard to solve. I know the words "liberal propaganda" are already forming on your lips so I won't take up to much of your time. Your talk of "ivory towers" and the evils of education smack of fear. You would rather see public education destroyed than fixed. Teachers get payed almost nothing. Is that a myth comming from the "Ivory Towers"? NO!
> So the Teachers aren't lock stepping with the current right wing fanatisisms. So what? Why the rich have you fighting so valiantly for there cause is what perplexes me. I guess telling us to not trust education is their first step.



What can I say to such a clearly written, sagacious retort?

You got me. I surrender.

Howard


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 8, 2003)

Good...   next.


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> *Thanks for the post as it was very insightful.
> 
> One thing I have been doing is a little re-search on the subject of change within the Kenpo system by looking at old Parker interviews and such. It has proved very interesting because Mr Parker spoke alot about incorporating methods and ideas to fit the fighting of the day which I believe is what lead him to change. Of course as his skill and knowledge grew over the years, he felt the need to incorporate this into the system. A lesson for us I think.
> ...



To fit the fighting of the day, at least what I see, would mean we would all have to train against 5 or more opponents, either standing or on the ground.  Too many 5 on 1 fights going on now a days....:shrug:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 9, 2003)

We do three on one in the normal course of training, and my students (and myself) have a hard enough time with doubles or triple opponents.  5:1 ratio would be close to impossible, without inflicting real physical damage to ensure that opponent was "out".  

Training suggestions for this, this would make me go "Hmmmm...."?


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *We do three on one in the normal course of training, and my students (and myself) have a hard enough time with doubles or triple opponents.  5:1 ratio would be close to impossible, without inflicting real physical damage to ensure that opponent was "out".
> 
> Training suggestions for this, this would make me go "Hmmmm...."? *



I have done 2 on 1 before as well.  And I agree with you totally.  Hmmmmmmmm....


----------

