# What does "Motion Kenpo" mean?



## Flying Crane (Sep 30, 2006)

I have seen this term used to describe the system that Mr. Parker established in roughly the 1970s.  I have also seen the term "commercial" used to describe this system as well.  While I understand what is meant by "commercial", I am still confused by the term "Motion Kenpo".  This seems to imply a certain approach to training and teaching, but I have not been able to figure out just what that approach is.

Motion is used in all martial arts, so in a way is seems like this description could be used for any art.  What is meant by this, when it is used to describe kenpo from that era?  How does this approach differ from what came before, such as Tracy kenpo, or what Mr. Labounty does, or other groups that claim to not do "Motion Kenpo", such as SL4?  What is the fundamental approach in training and teaching that defines "Motion Kenpo"?  Thanks.


----------



## jazkiljok (Sep 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> While I understand what is meant by "commercial", \.



perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by "commercial" and how that compares to say non-commerical kenpo? thanks.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Sep 30, 2006)

Ed Parker Jr. has defined "commercial" kenpo as taught in a commercial school. Non-commercial kenpo would be therefore taught in a home studio, at a park, possibly not for profit. I'm sure there are many interpretations. That just happens to be the first one I can recall. Dr. Chapel will no doubt chime in here with his precise definition.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 30, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by "commercial" and how that compares to say non-commerical kenpo? thanks.


 

This is not a term that I use, but I have seen it used by others.  In my opinion, it is a bit of a loaded term and is judgemental by implication.  I have not studied any EPAK kenpo so I am not in a position to make that judgement myself.

This is how I understand the message behind the term "commercial", as I have seen it used by others:  in or about the 1970s, Mr. Parker established a version of kenpo that was meant to be marketed to the masses.  It was built upon a business model that was designed to be effective in opening a chain of schools as a business venture, and was designed to make money.  Because of the business focus, which meant that it was a product to be sold to as many people as possible, the result was that certain elements of the art were left out because it was not possible to teach to the masses.  Supposedly, various concepts that could lead to a deeper understanding and more effective application of the art were eliminated from the business, or "commercial" version of the art.  These elements and concepts are too tricky and take too long and too much effort to teach properly.  If they are taught at all, they must be taught to smaller groups and over a long period of time to do it properly.  Because this would be counter to the business model, they were just eliminated.

What was left was a version of the art that can be effective, but has inherent limitations because of what was left out.  I guess you could say it is only a partial martial art.  But due to the large numbers of people it was meant to be taught to, this was the best that was possible.  It also created consistency from one school to the next, within the chain of franchises.  A student at any level could enter a different school within the chain, and fit right in and get the same kind of training.

Whether or not one teaches or practices in a money-making commercial school or "McDojo" of some kind isn't what defines "commercial" kenpo.  It is that the curriculum comes from the art that was established with this business model in mind, and carries these inherent "limitations".  I believe it is the curriculum as outlined in Mr. Parker's _Infinite Insights_ series.

This same version of kenpo has also been described as "motion kenpo", which, like I said in my first post, implies a certain approach to training.  I have not yet seen a clear description of what this means, and that is what I would like to understand.

Apparently there are some who were never a part of the business agenda, and they learned the deeper aspects of the art from Mr. Parker.  Also, apparently those who studied under Mr. Parker prior to the 1970s, and who never adopted the curriculum and approach from that era, also do not do "Motion" or "Commercial" kenpo, altho some of them have certainly created their own business and commercial ventures as well.

Again, this is not my term, I am in no position to pass this judgement on anybody's kenpo.  I have seen these terms get used often enough, and I am trying to understand why some describe the art this way.  For those who might be training what others term as "commercial" or "motion" kenpo, I would also welcome their viewpoints as well.


----------



## Doc (Sep 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> This is not a term that I use, but I have seen it used by others.  In my opinion, it is a bit of a loaded term and is judgemental by implication.  I have not studied any EPAK kenpo so I am not in a position to make that judgement myself.
> 
> This is how I understand the message behind the term "commercial", as I have seen it used by others:  in or about the 1970s, Mr. Parker established a version of kenpo that was meant to be marketed to the masses.  It was built upon a business model that was designed to be effective in opening a chain of schools as a business venture, and was designed to make money.  Because of the business focus, which meant that it was a product to be sold to as many people as possible, the result was that certain elements of the art were left out because it was not possible to teach to the masses.  Supposedly, various concepts that could lead to a deeper understanding and more effective application of the art were eliminated from the business, or "commercial" version of the art.  These elements and concepts are too tricky and take too long and too much effort to teach properly.  If they are taught at all, they must be taught to smaller groups and over a long period of time to do it properly.  Because this would be counter to the business model, they were just eliminated.
> 
> ...



Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets. I would only add that Ed Parker's own description of that art is based on the "study of motion." and is dominated by that concept, and its practitioners themselves use that appropriate description. Mr. Parker in looking for a 'mass market' idea hit upon this concept while watching himself on film, running the film backwards. Thus 'motion based' kenpo was born, commercialized, and proliferated. And as I have always said, the quality of the art is predicated on the experience, knowledge, and skill of its teachers. Naturally because its a commercial art that accepts everyone, there will always be those who have risen to become teachers with significant limitations in all those areas. Witness the plethora of high ranking young masters not found in other arts, and especially the more traditional where these things are mandated qualities in teachers, not just desireable. All arts 'move,' but none I know prior to Ed Parker used the conceptual idea of 'motion' as the basis of teaching. It is true that "motion is infinte" and thats where the name of Mr. Parker's book series came from. "Infinite Insights" into motion. The idea of just getting people to move was a great one, and for some is a good first stage of development. But correct anatomical movement to maximize and create longevity in skills as well as cultivate internal energy are another story. For those reared in the motion concept, the painful part is to go back and define their 'movement' and to conform to anatomical mandates instead of just being satisfied with 'moving.' The fact that you can now get to 'bars plus stripes' without having to do that, sets the standard for the art, rather low. But, some teachers nevertheless, are exemplary with really good students. It is only ego and pride that restrains them. But Parker new in a commercial art people would need to seek their own level, and 'Motion-Kenpo' does that better than anything. This is also why you see such great disparity in skill and knowledge between students of similar ranks. Even within the same school sometimes, grading must be flexible. Kinda like most public schools that must accept everyone as well, and we know how they consistently turn out the best. 

Flying Crane, you are amazing.


----------



## MJS (Sep 30, 2006)

Doc,

Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 30, 2006)

Doc said:


> Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets.
> 
> Flying Crane, you are amazing.


 

Well thank you for that sir.

I am still trying to figure out how the term "motion" fits in, as an accurate description for this.  Why is the term "motion" approporate?  maybe i'm missing something, but this is what stumps me.  Maybe because I have not studied EPAK, I lack the frame of reference to see what this term is describing, so this is why I'm asking for a little clarification.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 30, 2006)

MJS said:


> Doc,
> 
> Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?
> 
> Mike


 
Many know more than they share. Lotsa technology and insight out there; not that many curious vessels, willing to stretch the envelope for the sake of little more than stretching the envelope. 

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Doc (Oct 1, 2006)

MJS said:


> Doc,
> 
> Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?
> 
> Mike



All of the people you named are from the 'motion- kenpo' era. I know of no one that was there before the commercial motion business was created, that teaches it. However the knowledge of individual instructors is defined by more than that. Only a handful of people began with Ed Parker as white belts and made it to black. Most were knowledgeable in other arts before coming to Parker, and presumably Parker enhanced what they already knew as well as their previous knowledge impacting what they teach.


----------



## MJS (Oct 1, 2006)

Doc and Dave,

Thank you both for your replies.:asian: 

Mike


----------



## KenpoRonin (Oct 10, 2006)

Doc said:


> Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets. I would only add that Ed Parker's own description of that art is based on the "study of motion." and is dominated by that concept, and its practitioners themselves use that appropriate description. Mr. Parker in looking for a 'mass market' idea hit upon this concept while watching himself on film, running the film backwards. Thus 'motion based' kenpo was born, commercialized, and proliferated. And as I have always said, the quality of the art is predicated on the experience, knowledge, and skill of its teachers. Naturally because its a commercial art that accepts everyone, there will always be those who have risen to become teachers with significant limitations in all those areas. Witness the plethora of high ranking young masters not found in other arts, and especially the more traditional where these things are mandated qualities in teachers, not just desireable. All arts 'move,' but none I know prior to Ed Parker used the conceptual idea of 'motion' as the basis of teaching. It is true that "motion is infinte" and thats where the name of Mr. Parker's book series came from. "Infinite Insights" into motion. The idea of just getting people to move was a great one, and for some is a good first stage of development. But correct anatomical movement to maximize and create longevity in skills as well as cultivate internal energy are another story. For those reared in the motion concept, the painful part is to go back and define their 'movement' and to conform to anatomical mandates instead of just being satisfied with 'moving.' The fact that you can now get to 'bars plus stripes' without having to do that, sets the standard for the art, rather low. But, some teachers nevertheless, are exemplary with really good students. It is only ego and pride that restrains them. But Parker new in a commercial art people would need to seek their own level, and 'Motion-Kenpo' does that better than anything. This is also why you see such great disparity in skill and knowledge between students of similar ranks. Even within the same school sometimes, grading must be flexible. Kinda like most public schools that must accept everyone as well, and we know how they consistently turn out the best.
> 
> Flying Crane, you are amazing.


 
I would completely concur to all you said and would only add that as Parker continuously developed his system, he constantly discovered new and better ways to move his techniques.  There are certain angles the body moves on that are more efficient and able to provide more power than if that angle was slightly skewed.  One could also apply both sides of the body in harmony in motion to provide increased power.  Now I know that all martial arts apply these principles to their art, but do they apply them in all their techniques in all aspects of their techniques to give them the best possible technique.  I feel that is what Parker was going for and why he constantly was making revisions to the system.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 10, 2006)

OK, I've been giving this some more thought, still trying to figure out exactly how the term "Motion" fits into the picture, and just exactly what it is describing.  I've had some private discussions with others about this, trying to nail down what is meant.  Here is a thought that I came up with:

Maybe it's in how the curriculum is organized and taught.  The fact that it is organized into a formal curriculum, with X number of techs per belt, puts a lot of emphasis on the techs as a vehicle, and on the forms by extension.  The techs get sort of put up on a pedestal and in the spotlight and they become the center of focus and maybe that is a mistake.  Instead, correct basics should be the main focus, and the techs should be treated more like auxilliary ideas and concepts to experiment with, in learning to apply the basics and the principles upon which the art is built.  But because for many people the techs become the main focus, and the techs often have a whole lot of movements in them with many many followups and such, people end up learrning too much "motion", i.e. too many techniques, that are too complex, without enough attention paid to the basics.  If the basics are strong to begin with, then working with the techs makes sense.  But if you shortcut over the basics and jump to the techs before you are ready, then you are just "going thru the motions" of the techniques, but they aren't solid.  When the foundation isn't solid enough, all the techs in the world just become abstract and rather useless motion that carry little value.  The house is built on a foundation of sand, and an earthquake is coming.

Now one might argue that you learn the basics while you learn the techs.  The techs are built with the basics, so if you work them and drill them, your basics will become strong.  I would say that to some degree this idea has some truth to it, but overall it is limited.  The techs are complex enough that it is easy to "slurr" the basics and just get thru the tech.  If you build the basics separately, and really pay attention to the details, your techs will be much more solid when you work on them later.

So how close to the mark have I come?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I've been giving this some more thought, still trying to figure out exactly how the term "Motion" fits into the picture, and just exactly what it is describing. I've had some private discussions with others about this, trying to nail down what is meant. Here is a thought that I came up with:
> 
> Maybe it's in how the curriculum is organized and taught. The fact that it is organized into a formal curriculum, with X number of techs per belt, puts a lot of emphasis on the techs as a vehicle, and on the forms by extension. The techs get sort of put up on a pedestal and in the spotlight and they become the center of focus and maybe that is a mistake. Instead, correct basics should be the main focus, and the techs should be treated more like auxilliary ideas and concepts to experiment with, in learning to apply the basics and the principles upon which the art is built. But because for many people the techs become the main focus, and the techs often have a whole lot of movements in them with many many followups and such, people end up learrning too much "motion", i.e. too many techniques, that are too complex, without enough attention paid to the basics. If the basics are strong to begin with, then working with the techs makes sense. But if you shortcut over the basics and jump to the techs before you are ready, then you are just "going thru the motions" of the techniques, but they aren't solid. When the foundation isn't solid enough, all the techs in the world just become abstract and rather useless motion that carry little value. The house is built on a foundation of sand, and an earthquake is coming.
> 
> ...


 
I'd buy most of that.

Short Version.

"Motion" Kenpo studies the near infinite number of ways that the body can move and applies science whittle down the number of "effective" variables.  The student is left to discover what is "effective" to him while exploring the near infinte number of possible movements and combinations.

"Non Motion" Kenpo does not study the near infinite variables and is not concerned with opposites, reverses and "category completion".  A decidedly finite number of "effective" movements are taught and drilled with no emphasis on finding or exploring other variations that may not be as "effective".

That's what I get out of it at this point.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 10, 2006)

A contrast to Hype kenpo.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 10, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I'd buy most of that.
> 
> Short Version.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm...not sure that was what I was thinking.  More like "Motion" kenpo jumps straight to the techniques and forms, and expects that the basics and principles will be absorbed out of their practice. The "fancy" moves are learned early-on.

Non "motion" kenpo drills the basics until they are solid, then works with the techs and forms once the foundation is built.  Takes longer to learn the "fancy" moves, but they will be more effective if done this way.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Hmmm...not sure that was what I was thinking. More like "Motion" kenpo jumps straight to the techniques and forms, and expects that the basics and principles will be absorbed out of their practice. The "fancy" moves are learned early-on.
> 
> Non "motion" kenpo drills the basics until they are solid, then works with the techs and forms once the foundation is built. Takes longer to learn the "fancy" moves, but they will be more effective if done this way.


 
Well gotta disagree here, too general

I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything.  The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.

My friend in the Area called "Big Max" also drills basics and principles like nobody's business. His yellow belts have training in excess of a year for Yellow.  I've seen him spend hours at a time just drilling them on crossovers and pivots.

I've never seen any SL-4 or "non motion" kenpo stuff that I would deem fancy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 10, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Well gotta disagree here, too general
> 
> I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything. The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.
> 
> ...


 

well, this is exactly what I am trying to get to the bottom of:  just what the heck does the term "motion" refer to?  I keep seeing this term used in discussion, in certain camps, and it generally doesn't seem to be a positive term (from what I can tell), and I am trying to understand what the heck it means.  Nobody seems willing to come out and give a clear explanation of this term, how it relates to Mr. Parker's commercial system from the 70s, and just why exactly it is a "negative", or at least "limited" thing, compared to "non motion" kenpo.  What is the term "motion" describing, as far as approaches to training and such, or philosophy, or whatever?  As I stated in one of the earlier posts, I understand the concept of the "commercial" system, but the term "motion" is also used to describe this commercial system, and the meaning of the term "motion", in this context, remains unclear to me.

So I am listing my own thoughts as to what it MIGHT mean, hoping to get some feedback from those who might know.

If you are doing what would be considered "motion" kenpo, then I appreciate your comments, 'cause I think you guys should weigh in.  That's why I put this in an open discussion thread, instead of sending a bunch of Private Messages.  I think if your kenpo is being negatively judged by anybody, you guys should have a chance to comment on it.

And by "fancy stuff", I am simply referring to the curriculum of SD techs and forms, as opposed to the basics.  I suppose (tho I could be wrong) that SL4 uses these techs as well, in some way, shape, or form...


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 10, 2006)

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique _is_ the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 10, 2006)

Since "motion Kenpo" practitioners have never referred to it as such, instead calling what they do Kenpo. I would say that "Motion Kenpo" is a term, in all fairness, that is used to describe it in a lesser manner, when compared to the "Non-Motion Kenpo", by the Non-Motion Kenpo practitioners. Honestly, it's just a term.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 10, 2006)

I dont think it describes it as lesser......just something different.
If it was created to teach people quickly how to implement self defense into their daily lives and bring confidence to put it into action.......seems like a pretty successful venture.

I think some people feel that by calling it that, it automaitcally relegates it to inferior status. 
It is what it is


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 10, 2006)

Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is. 

Remember a time when you, and the others were just Kenpo practitoners?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 10, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Maybe so, but, in some of the threads here, the tone definitely describes it as being less than what "I" do, or "my" system is.
> 
> Remember a time when you, and the others were just a Kenpo practitoners?


 
do I?
I remember when i first started studying kempo.....I had no idea there were so many different kinds of it.....I just thought it was kempo.

So yeah.....once I was aware of all of the politics and such, it definitely put a negative spin on the whole ken/mpo thing for me.......I've since learned that I really love the particular art I practice and it offers everything I need to get the job done......

I am still very interested in all the other types and styles.....as well as with other martial arts.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 10, 2006)

I hear ya!  Honestly though, As I said It's all just terms used by the "others". When it comes down to it, the real differences are just little tinkerings, here and there. It's how one chooses to paint the picture.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 11, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.
> 
> From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique _is_ the goal.
> this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.


 

OK, interesting thought.  Could you elaborate a bit on this?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 11, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.
> 
> From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique _is_ the goal.
> *this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy*.


 
Got to disagree here.  This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques.  This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 11, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.


 

Hmm... well maybe Motion refers more to the commercial system done on the lower end of the quality continuum.  I have seen comments that indicate the commercial system is not necessarily bad, that there are those who are very good at it.  Maybe my thoughts about what Motion refers to, and BCB's comments might be accurate, but only applies to those who take the shortcuts in the commercial system, and reside on the low end of the scale.   James, maybe you and your people, if you do the commercial system, do it at the high end of the quality scale.  So the criticisms of "motion" kenpo perhaps don't apply on this end of the scale, and don't apply to you.  

Thanks for your comments again, they are giving me perspective and helping to fill in the picture.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 11, 2006)

We teach principles of motion over technique; have we transended motion Kenpo?
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 11, 2006)

OK, I was poking around in some really old threads, not expecting to find anything about this, but rather just for curiosity.  As luck would have it, I stumbled upon something that might shed some light on what is meant, this post by DOC:

_BODY INDEX TRAINING (B.I.T.)  Called BIT Training, is the use of anatomical Index points of the armatures to facilitate rapid assimilation of correct anatomical body mechanics in the beginning stages of learning. The index points are based on startle reflex mechanisms therefore they do not have to be so much learned as re-enforced. These index points correspond to structural integrity positions that contribute to proper execution. These points also are Grapple Control Mechanisms due to their extreme anatomical structure.

This is partly what fuels the flames. __*that is we are "anatomy based" instead of "motion based."
*
At least, that is what we do and it seems to work with long lasting and effective results_

The thread is found here, for those interested in the full context: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4842


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 12, 2006)

I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used. American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.

Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts. :asian:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 12, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> I'm tired of the divisevness, It's the same as saying "those people" to me. That can't be a way of having friendly discussions. *I would recommend that all the terms used to describe any art by others no longer be used.* American Kenpo is American Kenpo. Acceptable terms could be of which version, Tracy's, Epak, Sl-4, etc.. Ultimately, all arts use "motion", none are stagnant, and all have the scientific principles within them. No art is lesser or better than any other. Each of us in the end will do it our way anyhow. When that point is reached, you should just say this is how I do it, or what I've found. Don't take up the position, that it's the true way, it's just your way.
> 
> Respect to all practitioners, of all the arts. :asian:


 
I can respect your points to a degree.  However I keep in contact with "Doc" and I'm definitely considered to be in the "motion kenpo" crowd.  I've never heard him, or read anything where he said to me or anyone else that his way is "The True Way".  I've actually read several posts and e-mails from him that says that his way is "A way" or "HIS way" and that many in "motion Kenpo" can make their stuff work.  Sorry but the "us versus them" just seems to be his way of differenciating what his does from everybody else.  I don't see any malice, I just see a name.  Just like all the names you rattled off (Tracey, EPAK, SL-4, etc.) are just labels.  I don't find "motion kenpo" to be any different.  I guess I just don't understand the part about abolishing all terms that describe any art by others and then listing _acceptable_ terms that describe any art by others.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 12, 2006)

"No art is lesser or better than any other"

I guess it depends on how you define "better". 

The reason I have been working to learn the concepts and techniques of SL-4 and not some other branch of AK is that Dr. Chapel can demonstate physically that the stances, blocks, strikes etc done according to the methodology of SL-4 ARE more efffective than when done without them. 

Does that make it "better"?  I guess it depends on how you define "better". 

-David


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> I guess it depends on how you define "better".
> 
> -David


 
Well, I'm still trying to get a definition and description, perhaps examples, for "Motion-Based", as far as kenpo goes


----------



## JamesB (Oct 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I'm still trying to get a definition and description, perhaps examples, for "Motion-Based", as far as kenpo goes


 
my take is that 'motion-based kenpo' can be better understood by reading the 'Infinite Insights' series of books written by Mr Parker.  

I would say that a major philosophy behind 'motion-based' kenpo is to allow the blending, grafting and alteration of techniques and basics in order to create responses to 'attack scenarios'. Punches, blocks, strikes, major, minor moves etc are combined in 'logicial sequences', in order to overwhelm an opponent. The instructor and students are given free reign to utilize basics, techniques and 'master key' movements in any order they see fit.  The result is a very effective martial art. But the emphasis is on speed (fast techniques) and continuous motion, which is given priority over properly executed basics. Often stances and body mechanics are sacrificed (to some degree) in order to get in that extra strike or to keep blitzing. Often, but not always, 'basics' are ill-defined and allowed to be modified in order to fit the 'flow' of the technique. 

A good example in my mind is the recent 'Deflecting Hammer' thread on this forum, where the initial downward-block to the leg is made less effective (more of a parry) in order to make the subsequent elbow-stike flow more easily and hit faster after the 'block' makes contact. The result: yellow-belts learning this form of technique no longer have a technique-vehicle which teaches a 'correct' downward block and their understanding of how the mechanics of this block work are severely compromised. 

If you are familiar with the 'technique extensions' (usually learnt around brown-black belt level), then these are a perfect example of motion kenpo. They take an already effective 'base technique' and glue on a bunch of moves containing movements that often contradict the principles taught by properly executed basics. The 'extensions' are quite different to the techniques learnt at yellow-blue level.

btw I do study 'motion-kenpo' and I think it is a very good way of describing this form of kenpo. But many 'motion-based' practioners get very sensitive when their art is referred to in this way, despite the fact that they constantly describe their training using terms such as 'the science of motion'. Often when describing techniques/forms, descriptions are in terms of external motion rather than describing the physical (internal) mechanisms that are occuring. This is because information regarding this subject is not present in the 'motion curriculum' - but this does not mean that it is not taught or understood by 'motion' instructors.

These are my personal opinions, based on having learnt (for a few years now) 'motion-based' kenpo, but also more recently being taught 'non-motion' principles - in other words, putting the emphasis on the correct execution of technique rather than how fast, or how fluid it goes.

james


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 12, 2006)

Good stuff James!  :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2006)

Thanks James, that is the most clear explanation I have seen so far.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 12, 2006)

JamesB said:


> my take is that 'motion-based kenpo' can be better understood by reading the 'Infinite Insights' series of books written by Mr Parker.
> 
> I would say that a major philosophy behind 'motion-based' kenpo is to allow the blending, grafting and alteration of techniques and basics in order to create responses to 'attack scenarios'. Punches, blocks, strikes, major, minor moves etc are combined in 'logicial sequences', in order to overwhelm an opponent. The instructor and students are given free reign to utilize basics, techniques and 'master key' movements in any order they see fit. The result is a very effective martial art. *But the emphasis is on speed (fast techniques) and continuous motion, which is given priority over properly executed basics.* Often stances and body mechanics are sacrificed (to some degree) in order to get in that extra strike or to keep blitzing. Often, but not always, 'basics' are ill-defined and allowed to be modified in order to fit the 'flow' of the technique.
> 
> ...


 
*Ummmmm, NO. At least not in my neck of the woods.  The generalities being thrown around here are getting a bit old...*

I'm so glad you said "Often" here as that doesn't denote always..., I just wish you would have included that "Often" *Here.*

*What is this?  OK so it's now less effective because there is a technique introducing the concept of a parry after three concecutive techniques have utilized a hard block.  God forbid that Blocks AND Parries are introduced on Yellow and reinforced latter.  And the hard Block is utilized on the subsequent belt level.  OK I get it, a parry is less effective than a hard block no matter what your intention is.....riiiiiight sorry don't buy it and gave a detailed description on the other thread.  Pros and Cons for both but I guess a a way different from yours is less effective.  It's now less efffective to teach three hard blocks and then introduce parrying than it is to simply teach all hard blocks, I get it...riiiiiight. Come on now. The purpose isn't for a FASTER elbow strike at all, it's called economy which doesn't have to be fast.  The parry uses less energy to execute, doesn't require a 'recock' which uses more energy, and allows the opponent's momentum to carry which contributes to borrowed force.  So what's the problem? because we assume that a yellow belt isn't skilled enough to deal with a punch?  Teach them.  And why do people keep "what-ifing" the attacks by changing them and then saying the technique doesn't work.  If you want to change attacks do delayed sword against a rear choke and tell me it doesn't work. See what I mean?*

_Please give an example of a contradiction here,_

Agreed

Who was teaching you initially that speed is the emphasis, and to some extent the ability to flow is a part of correctness.  Improper flow is often a sign a poor transitions, unnecessary recocks(as some are necessary), wasted motion, poor footwork, broken alignment, off angles, etc.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 12, 2006)

Per Doc's Request

"The answer to such a question is very complicated from one perspective, and somewhat less complicated from another, yet still intricate.

There are many people seeking to define their place in Kenpo and as such, either embrace or reject many descriptors of the various interpretations that have evolved from the original mainland progenitor. To emphasize their positions, many have created various associations supported by their interpretations to validate their point of view.

I have personally clouded the issue by publicly making distinctions between what some see as the mainstream versions of Ed Parkers work versus others. I have further muddied the waters by being public enough in discussions to attract the ire of those born into a system that didnt exist when I began. Clearly, everyone from their own perspective may choose to see the universe in their own terms, but Ed Parker taught me sound logic should be the deciding factor.

Ed Parker himself made many distinctions in all of his teachings and created in his own evolution, various incantations, philosophies, and directions within the students exposed and or instructed during different periods in his life. Add to that an instructors willingness, or lack thereof, to share specific information with some and not others, creating additional downstream variances. 

In other words, the so-called evolution of American Kenpo is as convoluted as a conundrum wrapped in a riddle and punctuated by an enigma of inconsistent tolerances, at best.


The question itself implies the existence of a singular evolving Kenpo philosophy from Ed Parkers beginnings to the present day. This is obviously and completely incorrect.

The art that is the most visible and the most codified at his death was his commercial art, known by some, and described by Ed Parker himself as the study of motion or Motion-Kenpo. Perhaps a better defining descriptor would be Motion-based Kenpo. Nevertheless, this philosophy spawned by the desire to create commercial success, necessitated a less restrictive and conceptual driven vehicle that would be open to everyone, of all ages and circumstances.

I wrote an article years ago about the evolution of the arts and Ed Parkers commercial kenpo, making a case for its existence much as other arts had evolved. The problem is not one of evolution, but a diversion for the sake of mass-market appeal. Once accomplished, the vehicle becomes an independent entity unto itself with practitioners declaring their version to be the art instead of simple a version of the art.

History lays witness to the creation of judo to mass market the more destructive combative Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. The many houses of Qung-fu ultimately evolved into mass-market appeal Wu Shu, while the original variations of the fluid Chinese Martial Science somehow begat the rigid limited information Okinawan and Japanese empty hand arts. Then, and finally sport based models came into being, once again for mass-market appeal. Take note of ken-do from the samurai sword arts, or Aiki-do as well from jiu-jitsu as other examples of this historical process. Koreans nationalized their arts much like everyone else, spawning the sport Tae Kwon Do in the fifties over the lesser known and more intricate Hapkido or even Tang Soo Do.

It should come as no surprise to anyone in the ultimate self- gratification, quick, fast food, commercial market of America that an abridged version of any art would appear and achieve mass- market appeal and success. 

Ed Parker was a genius that loved the many different arts he studied and dissected, but he also was an entrepreneur and astute businessman. This clash between successful business mandates, and the deeper meaning and teaching of any art/science will never be resolved because the mass market devotees will, in general, not admit their place in histories evolution. 

For most, it is counterproductive to business, and necessitates the admission that their accomplishments, although perfectly valid, may not be the highest standard available. This is especially true when ones credibility and identity are predicated upon the efficacy of their own product for sale.

In any other business, this would be obvious. Few suggest that McDonalds is a bad place to have an occasional meal. Their restaurants are plentiful and located most everywhere in the world, consistent in presentation, quality, price, and will keep you from starving.

No one describes them in the business world as exclusive fine dining. Recognize however there are other less plentiful chain family restaurants as well, whose offerings are of higher quality than McDonalds but with the accompanying prices to match, yet still not yet meeting that fine dining description. However, for upscale gourmet quality there is always a special restaurant where chefs have honed their craft for many years, and dining is exquisite. 

People choose the level they want. Many would rather just go to McDonalds (especially the kids), because its reasonably priced, you know what youre getting, and theyre local, close, and convenient. Does this sound familiar?

Mass-market martial arts are no different. From Kempo, to Kenpo, to Krav Maga, to Tae Kwon Do, to judo, etc. They are all easier and more convenient than other more intense, and more demanding precursor arts. That is not to say an individual instructor cannot excel beyond the vehicle, but that is much less likely for a couple of reasons. Most of these teachers are those born in the systems they now teach, and therefore inherent all of its built in limitations. In addition, someone who has worked long, and hard to achieve a level of mastery would be unlikely to teach other than what he was taught. Much like a gourmet chef would be less likely to open up a quick burger joint, and flip patties all day on a grill.

So you see historically speaking, the existence and success of commercial-kenpo should not be a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, keep in mind, there are cars that come off an assembly line that are adequate, better, and best. Then there are cars singularly built by hand by skilled craftsmen. In between the adequate and best are upscale better versions of common brands where more attention to detail and a commitment to quality also provide a better quality vehicle, for more than the mass brand, but for less than the hand made. Free market concepts make room for all.

Ed Parker was no different, and in fact provided various versions of his arts at every step of his personal evolution. The dominant versions were always dictated by external sources, and his personal preferences.

It is not generally known, but in some degree, Ed Parkers creation of mass-market Kenpo was instigated by a personal tragedy. Approached by eventual business partners to create Action Karate Magazine, Parker became the victim of others questionable business practices that ultimately forced him into bankruptcy to protect his family and property. Although this was not the only reason he created commercial kenpo, clearly it had to have a significant impact when you have a wife and five children, and you make your living selling the martial arts. The degree of impact may be debatable, but his own admission of 
Urgent necessity to protect his assets leaves no doubt of the connection. This is not to negate Parkers ultimate goals of proliferation, which existed long before the bankruptcy was necessary.

However, to assume that the creation of a diversion art to sell, changed Ed Parkers personal evolution and his personal art would also be a mistake. He always separated what he did from what he promoted and sold. Witness some of the many mechanisms not present or articulated in the commercial art that were clearly visible in Parkers own execution being only recently discovered by some today.

So adopting the single time/evolution line from the beginning to what an individual may have been exposed to is a dubious perspective at best. There is no one Kenpo, nor is there a single timeline. Every time Parker taught someone and changed something from what he had taught another, he fractured his own timeline by creating a divergent lineage, all valid from within and from its own perspective.

Even so, interpretations are not created equal. As Parkers knowledge grew, it caused a shift in the sophistication hierarchy of every version or lineage. What was state of the art in the fifties was old kenpo in the sixties. When he taught someone something, and found a better way to do it and taught it to someone else, he pushed himself and older material further into history, and made it by comparison less effective material. This concept is true outside of the martial arts as well.

My personal timeline was also in a state of flux to the same extent as Parker. As my teacher, when he changed, so did I as he dictated. I remember him teaching inward blocks by cocking the blocking hand to the ear, and launching linearly from there. Phonetic Blocking he called it then. However when he began studying with Ark Wong and others, the blocking action changed to a more circular movement away from the head, as he began to understand indexing or phrasing of the movements. Both methods worked, but the latter was and is infinitely superior evolving from the former.
Therefore, for me, there is no original kenpo, only an on going process of understanding what he wanted and how he wanted it, as I was forced to evolve with him. Few did. Most from the fifties still do some version of fifties kenpo, and those splinters from the sixties are the same way.

Interject his free form motion based commercial product into the time line and you began to see the same phenomenon that beset other arts in history. A clear alteration and mass market adjustment that removed or never placed significant information in its structure, to insure a less demanding and complex abstract vehicle that allowed all students and teachers to seek their own level of competency within the limitations of the chosen vehicle. When you consider this commercial vehicle, unlike traditional arts, allowed and promoted students and teachers tailoring for their own personal preferences, you began to see why the wide existence of disparity is so ever present. 

No one has a definitive way to do anything, from a basic stance to an inward block. In spite of what some may think, you cannot freeform your way to mastery of a physical science. You may however, achieve a level of competency that is acceptable to you, the customer-client, and be awarded rank for that achievement. So long as youre content, than the vehicle has done its job, and you will take responsibility for its effectiveness, because you tailored it.

To that end, soft tissue strikes, rakes, claws, and eye pokes are dominant themes in the commercial vehicle. This is because they insure at the base level, there will be some measure of success should the student ever have to attempt to use it. Few seem to recognize, they knew how to poke someone in the eyes the day they signed up.

The problem has always been in the separation of the arts when the mass-market version reaches significant proportions. Then it takes on a life of its own, and its practitioners declare it the ultimate, despite its roots.

None of Parkers black belts students who studied previously to my knowledge were interested in the new motion diversion, and none to my knowledge teach it. Most avoid criticism from the motion born by simply not pointing these things out. Ancients like Chuck Sullivan, Dave Hebler, Steve Herring, or Stephen LaBounty, etc. have quietly extended their own interpretations from their eras teachings, and lineage. Some have given it a new name; others simply called it Kenpo.

As for me, a search of the forum sites will yield the differences between what I teach and whatever anyone else is doing. Simply put, "Anatomy vesus motion." Compare for yourself.

(Someone paste this on Martialtalk please)

Really busy gentlemen and ladies, be patient ." -- Doc


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2006)

Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate.  It discusses the "commercial" aspect, and discusses the constant evolution of things, but why is the term "Motion" an appropriate description for the Commercial system?

There are some references to "freeform" and "tailoring", and doing things to your own satisfaction, and a lack of real standards of how things are to be done, but that doesn't, in my opinion, explain why "motion" is an appropriate descriptor.  I'm not trying to dispute this or argue about this, just understand it.

Based on how SL4 is described, with indexing and whatnot, it seems to me that the term "motion" would be more appropriately used to describe this.  Since this isn't the case, clearly I fail to understand what "motion" implies.  And still it remains unexplained.


----------



## JamesB (Oct 12, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> What is this? OK so it's now less effective because there is a technique introducing the concept of a parry after three concecutive techniques have utilized a hard block. God forbid that Blocks AND Parries are introduced on Yellow and reinforced latter. And the hard Block is utilized on the subsequent belt level. OK I get it, a parry is less effective than a hard block no matter what your intention is.....riiiiiight sorry don't buy it and gave a detailed description on the other thread.


 
You're reading into things here which I did not say or imply....this particular topic would be better discussed in another thread.



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Pros and Cons for both but I guess a a way different from yours is less effective.


 
No, I never said that. I simply said that a properly executed downward block has more effect than a parry. I find it hard to believe how this could be disputed. The same full technique, with the parry, can be equally effective in the end. But the difference is where the emphasis is placed within the technique. With a block, the emphasis is on highlighting a strong stance, with the parry the emphasis is more on the timing of the technique. Each has pros and cons as we already agreed. The techniques are vehicles used to teach principles of kenpo pure and simple. Both techniques could very well have the same level of effect in the end. But you cannot dispute that 'motion' is emphasised differently between them.



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> It's now less efffective to teach three hard blocks and then introduce parrying than it is to simply teach all hard blocks, I get it...riiiiiight. Come on now.


 
what is your intention? Teach 'correct' blocks, or teach variations of these blocks in order to fulfill some goal of finishing the technique sooner? Actually I very much like the 'parry version', it is a great way to perform this technique. But I don't want to learn this way at yellow-belt. In my mind the techniques are a platform to teach correct basics, over and above anything else. You might have a different philosophy, that's fine.



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> The purpose isn't for a FASTER elbow strike at all, it's called economy which doesn't have to be fast.


 
Yes I appreciate that and thankyou for the clarification. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said the parry allows the elbow to 'hit faster' - I meant 'hit sooner' which does not imply that the limb is moved quicker, but rather the opportunity to stike becomes available sooner.



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> The parry uses less energy to execute, doesn't require a 'recock' which uses more energy, and allows the opponent's momentum to carry which contributes to borrowed force. So what's the problem?


 
The problem is that a parry requires *more* energy to execute if the intention is to have the same effect as a properly executed downward block. 



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> because we assume that a yellow belt isn't skilled enough to deal with a punch? Teach them. And why do people keep "what-ifing" the attacks by changing them and then saying the technique doesn't work. If you want to change attacks do delayed sword against a rear choke and tell me it doesn't work. See what I mean?


 
The whole idea of having belt-levels is so you don't throw beginners in at the deep end. And I'm not following where you are going with this delayed-sword attack-change thing. My deflecting-hammer technique works with, or without the punch because I don't have to deal with it. I've not changed the attack at all. 



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I was never taught that speed is the emphasis (basics have always been a priority), only that I have observed countless times, many others taking this route.
> 
> Your taking this personally, please don't. We can argue this point all night, but at the very core of this issue is that kenpo comes in different flavours. Some stress basics/stances and sacrifice speed for much of the early training. Other kenpo brances emphasise 'ecomomy of motion' and don't focus so much on how a basic is peformed.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 12, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> From my discussions with Doc, *i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal*; *whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.*
> this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.


 


Flying Crane said:


> OK, interesting thought. Could you elaborate a bit on this?


 


Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Got to disagree here. This implies that students learn the "How to" about techniques and not the "why to" about techniques. This is simply inaccurate in many (not all) Kenpo circles.


 


Touch Of Death said:


> We teach principles of motion over technique; have we transended motion Kenpo?
> Sean


 
I wrote an elaborate well thought out response last night......and i usually save to notepad before posting......last night i didnt and i lost it....grrrrr.
so now i am going to try and recreate it.

Flying Crane - let's say i am teaching the cha-cha to you in a dance class. If i follow a formula and a set pattern it would make teaching you a lot easier by repeating it over and over. I haven't taught you the essence of the cha-cha or what makes the cha-cha tick, but you can follow it along and do it. Now I, on the other hand am a professional dancer; when I do the cha-cha it looks like the dance that you learned, but there is a lot of ad-lib and steps thrown in that i didnt show you.
If, on the other hand, I decided to teach you the cha-cha by giving you a history lesson, the origins of the steps, what to do, what not to do, you might lose interest, take forever to learn the dance, or quit. If you quit because it takes to long, thats hard for business......it is in my best interest to teach you how to dance by going through the motions and not worrying about the extraneous stuff. 
eventually, you will be ad-libbing steps and doing the cha-cha with your own flavour.......but it will still be the cha-cha even if it isnt "exactly" what i showed you originally.

Kenpojujitsu3 - I think in a lot of kenpo circles most people learn the "how" and not "why" or the principle behind the technique.
I think that is why there are so many people out there that are very concerned about so-and-so not doing the technique exactly the same as joe bloe does it. I dont really think the "why to" is even really important as a secondary learning tool.........I think understanding what's happening to attacker and defender while executing a movement is important. that way, in the end, the technique doesn't matter much.

Touch of Death - There are a lot of smart guys studying martial arts......they have the ability to pick apart movement and see the mechanics and physics behind it. If you're able to do that......great!

But really.......this is all just me blabbin, what do I know.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2006)

Michael, 

Some of your question of late seem a bit more pointed toward Kenpo styles outside of the Tracy line. Are you thinking of making a move? 

Sometimes, it seems the Tracy people are scarce on this board. I've got to imagine that is a bit weird, but no more so than the guys studying some of those less distributed arts. 

curiously,

Mike


----------



## distalero (Oct 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate.  It discusses the "commercial" aspect, and discusses the constant evolution of things, but why is the term "Motion" an appropriate description for the Commercial system?
> 
> There are some references to "freeform" and "tailoring", and doing things to your own satisfaction, and a lack of real standards of how things are to be done, but that doesn't, in my opinion, explain why "motion" is an appropriate descriptor.  I'm not trying to dispute this or argue about this, just understand it.
> 
> Based on how SL4 is described, with indexing and whatnot, it seems to me that the term "motion" would be more appropriately used to describe this.  Since this isn't the case, clearly I fail to understand what "motion" implies.  And still it remains unexplained.




Perhaps it's the focus on which of the two aspects, anatomy and range of motion, is primarily empasized. In my day, the late 60's to mid 70's, the focus was always on ranges of motion, both yours and the attacker's; what and how to do something based on these ranges of response. The rationale for your response was based on what motion was possible, and maybe most effective, in a given scenario. I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths. When you think about it, these two approaches are very different in focus.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 12, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> I
> ......Kenpojujitsu3 - I think in a lot of kenpo circles *most people learn the "how" and not "why" or the principle behind the technique.*
> I think that is why there are so many people out there that are very concerned about so-and-so not doing the technique exactly the same as joe bloe does it. _I dont really think the "why to" is even really important as a secondary learning tool.........I think understanding what's happening to attacker and defender while executing a movement is important. that way, in the end, the technique doesn't matter much...._




You may be correct *here* from what I've been seeing and reading lately.

_"What's happening to the attacker and defender" has a reason.  That reason is the WHY which is what allows people to spontaneously make up a WHAT when needed on the flow.  I have never....let me repeat that NEVER met any martial artist that could handle spontaneous aggressive attacks by reading and responding to changing variables that didn't understand WHY. I repeat NEVER _

_The WHAT is the technique so if all you know is WHAT the technique matters alot.  THE WHY is the underlying concepts and principles.  If you know the WHY the technique becomes less important becasue they all become variations of just a handful of effective movements._


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 12, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> [/i][/u]
> 
> You may be correct *here* from what I've been seeing and reading lately.
> 
> ...


 
I couldnt agree more.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 12, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I can respect your points to a degree. However I keep in contact with "Doc" and I'm definitely considered to be in the "motion kenpo" crowd. I've never heard him, or read anything where he said to me or anyone else that his way is "The True Way". I've actually read several posts and e-mails from him that says that his way is "A way" or "HIS way" and that many in "motion Kenpo" can make their stuff work. Sorry but the "us versus them" just seems to be his way of differenciating what his does from everybody else. I don't see any malice, I just see a name. Just like all the names you rattled off (Tracey, EPAK, SL-4, etc.) are just labels. I don't find "motion kenpo" to be any different. I guess I just don't understand the part about abolishing all terms that describe any art by others and then listing _acceptable_ terms that describe any art by others.


 
O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as  "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 13, 2006)

distalero said:


> Perhaps it's the focus on which of the two aspects, anatomy and range of motion, is primarily empasized. In my day, the late 60's to mid 70's, the focus was always on ranges of motion, both yours and the attacker's; what and how to do something based on these ranges of response. The rationale for your response was based on what motion was possible, and maybe most effective, in a given scenario. I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths. When you think about it, these two approaches are very different in focus.


 
Damn, couldn't put that any better IMO


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 13, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.


 
I've never seen anything like "that's *JUST *commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That *"just"* turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one.  I've only seen the differenciating statements.  Personally I do it all the time as I differentiate what I teach from what others teach as a matter of reference not a matter of degradation.  I teach Kenpo with an emphasis on the principles and concepts of Ju Jitsu that I feel enhance Kenpo's already formidable arsenal.  I feel it allows kenpoists to have a greater ability to control and regulate their intent as well as a greater understanding of how, when and why to control and regulate.  I feel it gives them more options to control the situation without inflicting harm if necessary and by inflicting deadly harm if necessary.  I feel that adding (more like emphasizing) the Ju Jitsu concepts stresses proper basics, anatomy, leverage, and bio-mechanics more so than many that don't emphasize the Ju Jitsu in Kenpo.  This doesn't slight anyone, it's just how I FEEL about my approach to teaching and training.  In the previous statements I haven't downed anyone I just explained why I fell what I do is an effective path in training based on my experience with other paths of training.  I see the same when I hear about SL-4.  They're not saying they are better.  They are saying why they do what they do as opposed to what others do.  In short it's a "I do this type of Kenpo BECAUSE...." instead of just "I do this type of Kenpo."


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 13, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, I read this in the other posting, but this still does not really address why the term "motion" is appropriate.


 
Isn't it known as the study of (or science) of motion?  I'd guess that's where the term came from.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Michael,
> 
> Some of your question of late seem a bit more pointed toward Kenpo styles outside of the Tracy line. Are you thinking of making a move?
> 
> ...


 
No, that isn't my motivation.  I kind of see all kenpo as "One", in a way, but with different flavors.  If I lived close enough to a EPAK guy, or another Tracy guy who I trusted and respected, I might study under either or both.  I would certainly be interested in seeing the EPAK side of things, as well as furthering my understanding of the Tracy side.  But I am not deliberately planning to make a jump, or anything like that. 

I just keep seeing certain terms and discussion happening, and I am really trying to understand what people mean, when they use these terms.  This "Motion", or "Motion-Based" term continues to stump me.  I understand the concept of the Commercial system, but why is "motion" an accurate descriptor for the commercial system?  That's all, just trying to understand what is being said.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 13, 2006)

distalero said:


> I know virtually nothing of SL4, but the emphasis seems to me to be correct body use, in the sense of how joints articulate and muscles are used, based on anatomical truths, which redefines "motion" as primarily important only insomuch as it is based on these anatomical truths.


 
This is also my understanding of what SL4 is built upon.  I think I can understand this much.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 13, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> Flying Crane - let's say i am teaching the cha-cha to you in a dance class. If i follow a formula and a set pattern it would make teaching you a lot easier by repeating it over and over. I haven't taught you the essence of the cha-cha or what makes the cha-cha tick, but you can follow it along and do it. Now I, on the other hand am a professional dancer; when I do the cha-cha it looks like the dance that you learned, but there is a lot of ad-lib and steps thrown in that i didnt show you.
> If, on the other hand, I decided to teach you the cha-cha by giving you a history lesson, the origins of the steps, what to do, what not to do, you might lose interest, take forever to learn the dance, or quit. If you quit because it takes to long, thats hard for business......it is in my best interest to teach you how to dance by going through the motions and not worrying about the extraneous stuff.
> eventually, you will be ad-libbing steps and doing the cha-cha with your own flavour.......but it will still be the cha-cha even if it isnt "exactly" what i showed you originally.


 
I can certainly appreciate the analogy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 13, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I've never seen anything like "that's *JUST *commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That *"just"* turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one. I've only seen the differenciating statements.


 
I have seen postings that used the terms "commercial" and/or "motion" to describe the kenpo done by some, and it was definitely not a flattering term, in the context.  Now maybe that was not the intended message of the poster; I don't know.  But from how it has been used, it gave me the impression that "commercial" and/or "motion" kenpo is, in the poster's opinion, a "lesser" art.

I can understand why someone might feel that a system designed to be commercially propagated and taught to the masses might be lacking.  There are definitely logical and logistical reasons why the finer points of the art don't get passed along in this context, at least not to most students.  When the masses are the client, most people aren't up to the challenge, and don't have the commitment or the ability to learn the finer points that might make something that is "good" into something that is "excellent".

OK, on a philosophical level, I can understand and agree with this idea.

However, "motion" seems to describe an approach to training.  And as I stated above, I have seen the term used in a less than flattering way.  It implies that a "motion-based" approach is an inferior approach.  This is what I am trying to understand:  what does the term "motion" imply, as far as a training philosophy, and why would it be inferior to another approach?

I appreciate the replies I have seen so far.  Obviously those out there who are doing what might be termed "commercial" and/or "motion" kenpo don't agree that it is lacking.  I guess that just because somebody may feel that something is inferior, doesn't necessarily make it true.  This is why I made a public thread of this question.  If we can get a solid understanding of what "motion" refers to, and why it might be inferior, then the insights of those who are actually training this way become more valuable..


----------



## marlon (Oct 13, 2006)

I would just like to say that this thread is great for me as an instructor as it helps me to refine my understanding of what i am doing, what my teachers did and what i want to do as an instructor of kempo.  Thank you all...i love this

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 13, 2006)

Michael,

It was a great question and even better discussion.

Thanks.


----------



## JamesB (Oct 13, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> O.K. I admit it's not been said outright like that, however, when referring to it as "motion kenpo", or any other label, and it's teachings or lack there of, the tone has been degrading. Saying things like that's just the commercial version is the same as saying it's not my way, as mine is the correct way. Bottom line, There's no need for an us versus them attitude, here on martial talk! The differentiating can be done without that tone. "Motion Kenpo" is different, as no one other than that camp refers to it that way. When people ask you what you study do you say "motion Kenpo", or just kenpo? As for your uderstanding or my not making my point clear, I am saying Emphasize your way/s and don't refer to the other ways, or, what they're lacking. Basically, I'm saying, let's get away from the "those people" kind of speech, and that's exactly what it is.


 
I think you make some good points - the term 'motion kenpo' is certainly a loaded one. I think that problem is that when this term is used, it implies that motion is the only thing going on. But that's not true - the principles of body mechanics/physics are always present, and there will always be those that have better (or worse) understanding of these principles. In addition some practioners decide to emphasise the underlying physical principles more than the movements they create, at least in the early stages of learning.

Does anyone know when and where the term 'motion-based kenpo' originally originated? I believe it was perhaps Mr Parker himself describing his art?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Oct 13, 2006)

JamesB said:


> I think you make some good points - the term 'motion kenpo' is certainly a loaded one. I think that problem is that when this term is used, it implies that motion is the only thing going on. But that's not true - the principles of body mechanics/physics are always present, and there will always be those that have better (or worse) understanding of these principles. In addition some practioners decide to emphasise the underlying physical principles more than the movements they create, at least in the early stages of learning.
> 
> *Does anyone know when and where the term 'motion-based kenpo' originally originated? I believe it was perhaps Mr Parker himself describing his art?*


 
Uh oh here it comes.  I've never met Mr. Parker so I can't say I heard him say that.  But I have never seen Kenpo refered to as "motion-based kenpo" in any printed article or text prior to his death.  This is where the comments like "It originated December 16th, 1990" comes from.


----------



## JamesB (Oct 13, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Uh oh here it comes. I've never met Mr. Parker so I can't say I heard him say that. But I have never seen Kenpo refered to as "motion-based kenpo" in any printed article or text prior to his death. This is where the comments like "It originated December 16th, 1990" comes from.


 
yes, I've neither met Mr Parker (started kenpo way too late for that), and I had never heard or seen written this term. But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now. Perhaps a better question to ask would be: Did the term 'motion-based kenpo' originate before, or after Mr Parker's passing?


----------



## pete (Oct 13, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now...


 rhetorically, what other terms or labels may this bring to mind.  oh, fugheddabowdit, wouldn't want to drag this down into the gutter.


----------



## distalero (Oct 13, 2006)

JamesB said:


> yes, I've neither met Mr Parker (started kenpo way too late for that), and I had never heard or seen written this term. But for whatever reason the term has been introduced, and I don't believe it was originally intended to be used in the way it is now. Perhaps a better question to ask would be: Did the term 'motion-based kenpo' originate before, or after Mr Parker's passing?



Before; much before. Just think: "Universal Pattern". The universal pattern symbolizes much of the older emphasis. You know, when I use the term "older" it occurs to me that you can really differentiate between 3 general approaches: so called "motion" kenpo, based on what I described earlier, "commercial" kenpo which came after this and was based on a more codified approach, and SL4 as an underlying approach to either. Now, I'm sure Doc would disagree with this last part, but wouldn't body mechanics as understood by SL4 modify either of the other 2 approaches? It's not a matter of good, better, best, but rather "this, that, and this one within those 2".


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 15, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> I've never seen anything like "that's *JUST *commercial kenpo" but I have seen "That's commercial kenpo". That *"just"* turns a differentiating statement into a degrading one. I've only seen the differenciating statements. Personally I do it all the time as I differentiate what I teach from what others teach as a matter of reference not a matter of degradation. I teach Kenpo with an emphasis on the principles and concepts of Ju Jitsu that I feel enhance Kenpo's already formidable arsenal. I feel it allows kenpoists to have a greater ability to control and regulate their intent as well as a greater understanding of how, when and why to control and regulate. I feel it gives them more options to control the situation without inflicting harm if necessary and by inflicting deadly harm if necessary. I feel that adding (more like emphasizing) the Ju Jitsu concepts stresses proper basics, anatomy, leverage, and bio-mechanics more so than many that don't emphasize the Ju Jitsu in Kenpo. This doesn't slight anyone, it's just how I FEEL about my approach to teaching and training. In the previous statements I haven't downed anyone I just explained why I fell what I do is an effective path in training based on my experience with other paths of training. I see the same when I hear about SL-4. They're not saying they are better. They are saying why they do what they do as opposed to what others do. In short it's a "I do this type of Kenpo BECAUSE...." instead of just "I do this type of Kenpo."


 
Either way, the difference of what one does is emphasized by saying "that's commercial". What is implied there between the lines, is also present, which is "I don't do that stuff", or "those people".  As for what I'm feeling from your writing, just to make myself clear, I've never claimed YOU, or anyone else specific, as feeling, or saying this. However, I just pointed out, that, through my time here, I've seen the tone and writings definitely downing what is considered "motion kenpo".


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 15, 2006)

JamesB said:


> I think you make some good points - the term 'motion kenpo' is certainly a loaded one. I think that problem is that when this term is used, it implies that motion is the only thing going on. But that's not true - the principles of body mechanics/physics are always present, and there will always be those that have better (or worse) understanding of these principles. In addition some practioners decide to emphasise the underlying physical principles more than the movements they create, at least in the early stages of learning.
> 
> 
> > Exactly true! Also why I was "sticking up" for "motion kenpo" so to speak. I think those that have written what they have, the way they have (and they have!) need to understand that also.


----------

