# Choosing techniques to teach in kenposchool



## JSK (Jul 14, 2006)

He,

If you want to learn the Ed Parker system and you would be a new teacher setting up a new school i have the following question :

I am not talking as the new teacher but as a starter in the kenposport.
What is the criteria for this teacher to say i do not want to teach all the
techniques.

Or in his opinion some techniques are useless and they are not needed by 
the system. 

The experts will have the answers and because i am just beginning to
create a vision for myself i let you guys give me the right insight on
this subject.

Thanks,

Jos-hua


----------



## HKphooey (Jul 14, 2006)

JSK said:
			
		

> He,
> 
> If you want to learn the Ed Parker system and you would be a new teacher setting up a new school i have the following question :
> 
> ...


 
You may want to start with this previous thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34907

Hope this helps.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 14, 2006)

JSK said:
			
		

> If you want to learn the Ed Parker system....


 
....then you don't delete anything as it's really no longer the Ed Parker system.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 14, 2006)

Delete what ever you want but I would be interested in hearing your reasons for deletion.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2006)

I think a competent teacher should be able to make his own decisions about this, but he should also be honest with the students about it.  He should not claim it is the complete or identical system.  He should tell the students that it is based on Mr. Parker's kenpo as he learned it from So-and-So, but has various deletions and additions that seemed appropriate to the teacher, based on his own experiences and studies, which may have included studies outside kenpo.

Doing this may put him at odds with some of the big organizations that try to stay close to Mr. Parker's system as their head instructor learned it.  This may mean that the instructor is independent and does not belong to one of these organizations.  But in my opinion, that doesn't really matter.  Membership in the club is no guarantee of good or poor quality.  He could be a highly skilled and talented independent instructor who simply has chosen to do things his own way.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2006)

Until you understand the complete system, how do you if a technique is "useless"? 

I am going to speak above my experience here ... so if you hear a cracking sound, it is the limb I have crawled out on. 

In Long Form 1 of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System there is a 'Stand-Out' move between the right inward block-left punch, and the left inward block-right punch. This stand out move is a right 45 degree cat stance with a right inward block. 

In the Parker system of American Kenpo, we learn that everything has an opposite and a reverse ... so somewhere in the system, we should have a stand out move that is a left 45 degree cat stance with a left inward block.

It is my understanding that this opposite move does not show up until Form 6. I have not yet learned Form 6. It will be several years before I learn Form 6. I have been studying this system of Martial Arts for more than five years, so far. 

Let us assume that I have many, many years experience in another system and decide I want to begin teaching the American Kenpo system. I have incomplete knowledge of the system.  I do not see the usefulness of this Stand Out move to exist in Long Form 1, so I decide to eliminate it. 

By eliminating the Stand out Move .... I am breaking one of the concepts upon which the American Kenpo System is built (opposite and reverse). Eventually, I may learn Form 6 ... and the opposite for the Stand Out move in Long 1; bringing the forms together with the concepts.

In my opinion, if I were to make these changes based on incomplete knowledge, I would have bastardized the system and weakened its strength as a 'system'. 

The trouble is, that once you scramble that egg, there is no unscrambling it. How do you go back to students you have taught for years and say ... hey, forget all that stuff I showed you before and do it this way now. 

Anyhow... that's my two cents.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2006)

Interesting thoughts, Michael, I have some comments,

*Until you understand the complete system, how do you if a technique is "useless"? *

 In my opinion, nobody's knowledge or understanding is ever truly "complete", not even Mr. Parkers.  Some people are more knowledgeable and skilled than others, but never complete.  It is impossible to objectively measure this, however.  Some who are less knowledgeable are still very skilled and competent to teach.  What they know, they know very well and can use it, and can teach others to use it.  Just because they may not know _everything_ in a particular system does not detract from this.

*In Long Form 1 of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System there is a 'Stand-Out' move between the right inward block-left punch, and the left inward block-right punch. This stand out move is a right 45 degree cat stance with a right inward block. *

*In the Parker system of American Kenpo, we learn that everything has an opposite and a reverse ... so somewhere in the system, we should have a stand out move that is a left 45 degree cat stance with a left inward block.*

*It is my understanding that this opposite move does not show up until Form 6. I have not yet learned Form 6. It will be several years before I learn Form 6. I have been studying this system of Martial Arts for more than five years, so far. *

In this particular example, I would say that if you recognize this as a "stand-out" movement in Long One, done on one side only, you should certainly be able to translate that movement to the other side well before you learn the movement in Form 6.  Just because you have not learned the formal position of this movement in the later form doesn't mean that you cannot recognize it and find its usefulness (assuming it has usefulness).  I know many in kenpo disagree with me, but I believe all techniques should be done on both sides.  Your skill should be developed as ambidextrous as possible.  You never know how you might need to use it.

*The trouble is, that once you scramble that egg, there is no unscrambling it. How do you go back to students you have taught for years and say ... hey, forget all that stuff I showed you before and do it this way now. *

We are always learning and developing (hopefully!), even the most senior and most experienced.  If you are teaching and you have taught something one way (or eliminated something from the curriculum), and then you later learn a better way, or the significance, then make the change or bring it back in once you learn this.  Teachers often teach very differently early in their teaching career compared to later in their teaching career.   Mr. Parker is a clear example.  What he taught the early students such as the Tracys, Ibrao, and Sullivan was quite different from what he taught Tatum, Trejo and the other later guys.  Those who were with him at that time learned the new things, those who were not kept things the old way or made their own changes.

My Kung Fu sifu points this out all the time.  He was a later student of some of his teachers.  How he learned certain things are quite different from how some of his older kung fu brothers learned the same thing, who went before him.

Understanding in the Martial Arts is on a continuum.  Everyone is different.  Nothing is absolute.  Nothing is complete.  Everyone who tries their best does things to the best that they understand.  If their understanding improves later, they will make changes and adjustments at that time.  Nobody can do better than that.


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 17, 2006)

JSK said:
			
		

> He,
> 
> 
> What is the criteria for this teacher to say i do not want to teach all the
> ...


 
I think the answer is fairly simple, but takes a long time to accomplish. 

Criteria: The teacher would have first learned all the material well, but he will have learned the material he wants to eliminate especially well - before he decides it has no value.

Now in my opinion, after learning the Ed Parker system of Kenpo that well, he may have favorite techniques, sets, and forms, etc., but he will be very hesitant to say this, or that, has no value.

On that other hand he may very well say (to himself) the system was just so difficult for his students to learn, that in order to keep attrition at an acceptable level he made some difficult decisions and eliminated some material he felt was (kind of) redundant.

Of course after he has eliminated a fair number of techniques I would also expect to hear him say things like this to his class:

"Although this technique is not required for your next belt, I still teach it now and then because I have yet to see another technique that requires you to maintain such perfect posture during its execution - thus the value of this "obsolete" technique is not in its street effectiveness, but in what it teaches you about proper form and posture."

Darn, those outdated, useless, and ineffective techniques are just so hard to get rid of.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 18, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> "Although this technique is not required for your next belt, I still teach it now and then because I have yet to see another technique that requires you to maintain such perfect posture during its execution - thus the value of this "obsolete" technique is not in its street effectiveness, but in what it teaches you about proper form and posture."
> 
> Darn, those outdated, useless, and ineffective techniques are just so hard to get rid of.


 
How many times have heard this at off-shoot schools or schools that changed the order of the techniques or numbers required for each belt?  Too true, nail on the head.


----------



## Ray (Jul 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am going to speak above my experience here ... so if you hear a cracking sound, it is the limb I have crawled out on.
> 
> In Long Form 1 of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System there is a 'Stand-Out' move between the right inward block-left punch, and the left inward block-right punch. This stand out move is a right 45 degree cat stance with a right inward block.
> 
> ...


Very interesting.  I was told once that the cat/block in Long One in reality happens with every step back in Long One---we just don't stop and and show it like that each time.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 18, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Very interesting. I was told once that the cat/block in Long One in reality happens with every step back in Long One---we just don't stop and and show it like that each time.


 
That's true, the isolations in Kenpo forms do not repeat themselves on the other side.  That's one of the reasons they are termed "stand-outs" or "isolations" to begin with.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 18, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Very interesting. I was told once that the cat/block in Long One in reality happens with every step back in Long One---we just don't stop and and show it like that each time.


 
As we continue through the block sequence in Long One, the inward block becomes the minor move in a minor/major combination, right? Whereas, in the stand out, there is no major. 

Isn't that the reason the inward block is first in the forms, because it does not have a minor move? 

An interesting point you bring out, though. Are the retreating foot manuevers of Long One (Forward Bow - 45 cat - Neutral Bow)? I think I have always executed them as Step Thru Reverse foot maneuvers. I know the cat is a transitional stance, but, ... hmmm ... something new to ponder.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 19, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> I
> "Although this technique is not required for your next belt, I still teach it now and then because I have yet to see another technique that requires you to maintain such perfect posture during its execution - thus the value of this "obsolete" technique is not in its street effectiveness, but in what it teaches you about proper form and posture."
> 
> Darn, those outdated, useless, and ineffective techniques are just so hard to get rid of.


 
This is an interesting point.  

I have to comment, however, and certainly welcome any feedback.

Many of the exercises and drills we engage in during training don't have a direct application to self defense.  Instead, the drills develop other skills that are useful in self defense, such as posture, balance, speed, power, footwork, etc.  But the drill that one practices to develop these skills could not be portrayed as a self-defense technique.  

Kind of like football players who step in and out of a row of tires placed on the ground in order to develop quick footwork.  The drill itself is not part of the game of football, but it develops skills that are useful in the game.

So getting back to kenpo, why not just practice drills designed to develop these skills, and not present them as self-defense techniques?  If the side-skill, such as posture or balance, is the true goal of the technique, and not its street effectiveness, then why let it masquerade as a self defense technique?  It could actually be misleading to a student who might think it is reliable, and then gets killed when he tries to use in when he is attacked.


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 20, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is an interesting point.
> 
> I have to comment, however, and certainly welcome any feedback...
> 
> ... So getting back to kenpo, why not just practice drills designed to develop these skills, and not present them as self-defense techniques? If the side-skill, such as posture or balance, is the true goal of the technique, and not its street effectiveness, then why let it masquerade as a self defense technique? It could actually be misleading to a student who might think it is reliable, and then gets killed when he tries to use in when he is attacked.


 
I see your point and it's a good one, but it's only misleading to a student who has not been properly instructed.  Just like Huks videos, or Mohamads videos that say their video is not supposed to take the place of an instructor.

Larry Tatum, Ed Parker, Huk Planas, Frank Trejo, Rich Callahan, AC Rainey and many other Kenpo Masters taught me the art of Kenpo and all of them told me not to depend on any specific technique to defend myself with.

All these men taught me to learn our material and perform it well, but when you get into a fight throw the book out the window and kick some . . . well you know.

I think this is something that grappling has helped to clarify.  You don't so often hear grapplers arguing about how street effective a specific series of moves is in a street fight.

Transitioning from one technique to another is the beauty of grappling as it should be the beauty of Kenpo.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> I see your point and it's a good one, but it's only misleading to a student who has not been properly instructed.
> 
> 
> 
> All these men taught me to learn our material and perform it well, but when you get into a fight throw the book out the window and kick some . . . well you know.


 
I am in full agreement with this.  I see the techniques as a list of possibilites and ideas to work with, mix and match and deviate as needed, but highly unlikely to be workable exactly as taught.  The fight situation changes and one needs to change with it and not be committed to the idea of executing a textbook technique.

I guess these can still serve a purpose to develop the side skills.  Maybe when they are taught, the teacher should just be up front about what the purpose really is, and not pretend these might have a street application.  They could almost make up a separate category, "skills developement methods", rather than "self defense techniques".


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 20, 2006)

I agree, only there are already called self-defense techniques - so let's go with your idea of being up front.  

I love that idea.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

Rich_Hale said:
			
		

> I agree, only there are already called self-defense techniques - so let's go with your idea of being up front.
> 
> I love it that idea.


 
Yeah, it sort of Is What It Is at this point.

I come from the Tracys lineage so my perspective is with this endless list of techniques, much more so than the others.  But I think this may be one reason Kenpo sometimes gets a bad rap among certain groups.  These things are presented as SD Techniques, and with a lot of them you can just get a gut feeling that they would never ever work.  There are a lot of good ideas in the mix as well, but enough unworkable stuff that it can take the spotlight.  It's too bad that some of it was organized the way it was.  Maybe could have been better done, but it is what it is.

I've ranted in other threads about the endless technique lists in Tracys so I'm not gonna rehash it all again here.  I just feel when it comes down to real SD techs, the fewer the better, as long as those few are really good ideas and there is enough to be thorough and cover most reasonable possibilities.

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 20, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> How many times have heard this at off-shoot schools or schools that changed the order of the techniques or numbers required for each belt? Too true, nail on the head.


 
heh, you think that is bad, I once visited a school that taught roughly 12 techniques per belt, but you could get the other 12 if you would join up with them as a bonus lol.  That was the most amazing croc of **** I ever saw, but hey people apparently were buying into it.

On a side note, I believe that you should keep the 24 tech curriculum and allow your students to decide what works for them, while I do not believe that a school with legitimate and honest reasons for deleting material is a fraud or McDojo, I think it is best for students to decide. IMO they should be exposed to it all.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> heh, you think that is bad, I once visited a school that taught roughly 12 techniques per belt, but you could get the other 12 if you would join up with them as a bonus lol. That was the most amazing croc of **** I ever saw, but hey people apparently were buying into it.
> 
> On a side note, I believe that you should keep the 24 tech curriculum and allow your students to decide what works for them, while I do not believe that a school with legitimate and honest reasons for deleting material is a fraud or McDojo, I think it is best for students to decide. IMO they should be exposed to it all.


 
You've made a good point about teaching all and allowing the student to have the opportunity to work on it and develop what works best for them.

But I'm gonna play devil's advocate here a little, for the sake of discussion.

What is commonly referred to nowadays as "EPAK" has a much reduced curriculum from what Mr. Parker's kenpo originally was when he started teaching in the US.  According to Tracys (let me make it clear that I am not advocating Tracys or anyone over another, this is just for the sake of discussion) they have kept the entire original curriculum as Mr. Parker taught it in the 1950s.  There are no such things as "extensions" to be taught at later belts.  The technique was taught in its entirety, but many of them have several variations.  Tracys curriculum is 10 techs for yellow, 30 each for Orange thru 4th Black, and 41 for 5th Black.  Grand total: 381, but with variations Tracys claims 600 (I never counted to verify that).

So assuming Tracys are telling the truth about this, Mr. Parker clearly deleted a huge pile of material from what became the later versions of the art.  Mr. Parker clearly felt it was appropriate and necessary to make deletions.  How does this jive with keeping everything?  

It doesn't.  I think the truth is that the art is constantly evolving.  It evolved under Mr. Parker's guidance, and it will continue to evolve under the guidance of his students, and those that come after them.  Since he had so many students, it will evolve in many different ways.  The experiences of these people (including experiences in arts other than kenpo) will affect the direction in which the art goes, under their guidance.  Some people will add material, some will delete material, and some will alter, combine, and split material.  

If you check Tracys website, they list a lot of additional material that is clearly from Chinese arts, and not kenpo in origin.  They took the route of "more".  I don't personally agree with this approach, but that's what they do.  I have seen other kenpo organizations that have only 4 or 5 techs per belt, and one master form.  I'm not sure I agree with that much streamlining either, but it's another approach.  I am sure that for those who understand the various systems, they all work remarkably well.

So how do you decide what is right?  I think it is a personal choice that one makes, based on their experiences.  Sure, some people know more and understand better and are more skilled than others.  But this will always be the case.  I don't think any one person, or small group of people, can claim the right to interpretation of the art, and everyone else needs to just follow what they say.  Everyone can only do their best, based on their understanding and experience.  And when you meet someone who can teach you to understand better, the art for you evolves some more.  It never ends, and there will probably never be a final, perfect system with a never-changing curriculum.


----------



## Ray (Jul 20, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> What is commonly referred to nowadays as "EPAK" has a much reduced curriculum from what Mr. Parker's kenpo originally was when he started teaching in the US. According to Tracys (let me make it clear that I am not advocating Tracys or anyone over another, this is just for the sake of discussion) they have kept the entire original curriculum as Mr. Parker taught it in the 1950s. There are no such things as "extensions" to be taught at later belts. The technique was taught in its entirety, but many of them have several variations. Tracys curriculum is 10 techs for yellow, 30 each for Orange thru 4th Black, and 41 for 5th Black. Grand total: 381, but with variations Tracys claims 600 (I never counted to verify that).
> 
> So assuming Tracys are telling the truth about this, Mr. Parker clearly deleted a huge pile of material from what became the later versions of the art. Mr. Parker clearly felt it was appropriate and necessary to make deletions. How does this jive with keeping everything?


Take a look at Tracy's Crash of the Eagle (EPAK Circling Wings). If memory serves, In EPAK where the practitioner would execute a horizontal 4 finger thrust to the eyes, the Tracy material has four or five varations and each variation is a difference on that 4-finger-thrust. If memory serves, variation A = horizontal 4 finger thrust; B = leopard punch, C = Horizontal punch, D = Straight Heel palm. Mr. Parker's use of the equation formula makes each variation possible without having to teach so down to the nit detail. 

Look at Blinding Sacrifice (I can't recall the Tracy name), in Tracy it is split into two variations -- but the entirety of it is in one EPAK technique.

I think that the EPAK system provides examples of all the movements in the Tracy system. And each system can render equally good martial artists. I just think that the equation formula made it possible to "compact" the system into EPAK.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I think that the EPAK system provides examples of all the movements in the Tracy system. And each system can render equally good martial artists. I just think that the equation formula made it possible to "compact" the system into EPAK.


 
I don't know the Equation Formula, but you could very well be right.  One of my big complaints with the Tracys curriculum is the amount of repetition in many of the techniques.  There is certainly room to streamline, without loosing anything.  

This is my point:  there are certainly reasons to do this.  Mr. Parker did it, I suspect he wasn't finished when he passed away.  Others will do it as well.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 20, 2006)

Equation Formula:

To any given base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) ajust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Equation Formula:
> 
> To any given base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) ajust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.


 
OK, these are concepts I have become familiar with thru discussions here and reading Mr. Parker's books.  Just didnt know it by that name.

Again, going back to my prior post.  My only point is, where do we start counting when we say the "complete" system, or the "whole" system, or the "original" system?  These terms meant different things at different times in history, but they all were methods Mr. Parker was using at those times, and we can see that Mr. Parker saw reason to make changes that resulted in a system with a smaller list of techniques.  Whether the ultimate result was better, worse, or the same is something that I cannot judge.  I think they can all be top notch, if done well, but can also all be lousy when done poorly.

This is why I think change will continue to happen. Some things may be poor, others good.  Some will proliferate (hopefully those that have high quality), and others will die with their creators.  But feeling that it is somehow crucial to maintain the system as it was when Mr. Parker passed away is a notion that I believe is simply erroneous and short-sighted, and will result in the deterioration of the art in the long run.  It would become archaic and no longer applicable to modern realities, and would be subject to the same criticisms that many other traditional arts are given, as out-dated and no longer cutting edge.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 20, 2006)

I think you are absolutely right, I dont think there is a complete system or an original system, or a whole system.  I believe its just instructor, your instructor is going to try to teach you the system the best way he or she knows how.  Now within that range there is a margin or error, you know the self proclaimed soke's and grandmasters and what not that are in it for themselves and not for the style.  My point is, that there is more to Kenpo than the techniques, I perhaps, call me a masochist or paranoid, like the 24 technique currirulum, but at the same time there are instructors that choose to teach a shorter version and teach this version because in their minds they feel that it is more practical, I mean that is fine too.  The guy who teaches the correct system should be your instructor until you find a new one. I would simply rather teach a 24 tech curriculum because it was what I was taught, I have a pretty good idea of what I would use in a fight and what I definately would not, but thats me, a student of mine should be free to make up his or her own mind.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> I think you are absolutely right, I dont think there is a complete system or an original system, or a whole system. I believe its just instructor, your instructor is going to try to teach you the system the best way he or she knows how. Now within that range there is a margin or error, you know the self proclaimed soke's and grandmasters and what not that are in it for themselves and not for the style. My point is, that there is more to Kenpo than the techniques, I perhaps, call me a masochist or paranoid, like the 24 technique currirulum, but at the same time there are instructors that choose to teach a shorter version and teach this version because in their minds they feel that it is more practical, I mean that is fine too. The guy who teaches the correct system should be your instructor until you find a new one. I would simply rather teach a 24 tech curriculum because it was what I was taught, I have a pretty good idea of what I would use in a fight and what I definately would not, but thats me, a student of mine should be free to make up his or her own mind.


 
I think that's a reasonable position to take.


----------



## JSK (Jul 23, 2006)

Hello,

I am back from a vacation and now i am going to read the reactions on my question about choosing techniques.

First of all thanks for the discussion.
Second i have to read the stuff first.
Later allthough i am a beginner in the sport i will give an opinion.

I am now learning the official techniques from the Ed Parker System as they are standing in the books.
I am a homestudent and next year i will go to a real school.
The discussion from you will help me understand the sport and give me a good insight in what is going on in the kenpoworld.

For now thanks again and see you when i see you.

Jos-hua


----------



## melj7077 (Jul 23, 2006)

I remember Mr. Planas telling us once that if they kept every technique they ever had for every belt there would be an encyclopedia for each belt.

That dictated what I would teach later on.  In general, if you are going to say you teach Ed Parker kenpo then you should stick with Ed Parker material.  The difficulty arises when you try to figure out what the right set of material is (16 system, 24 system, 32 system).  

Many of the techniques are in fact repitions of previous material just done in a slightly different way.  I was taught the 32 extensions and told the rest were added on later.  from what I have seen of them they seem to be grafting exercises.  My biggest problem with them was they seemed to eliminate thought from the student.  Memory became the issue.  Also, are there 6 forms or 8?  

What I came to realize through study with my present instructor is that everything is based on pure theory.  My own interpretation of how a system comes into being is as follows:

The originator has learned a system and has progressed enough to learn pure theory of motion.  These are the principles.  From there they develop their own tactical theory based on the focus of the style they want to teach (how much hand work, how much kicking, what percentage of ground techniques, weapons, etc.).  This is why tactics are ever changing but principles are never changing.

From the tactical theory a set of basics, forms, and pre-sets/techniques are developed that demonstrate the tactical theory which should reflect the pure theory of motion.  Therefore, any style of martial arts that follows the pure theory of a system can be considered legitimate so long as the rules are clear, spelled out, and work.  

So any techniques can be taught so long as the justification is there.  Deletion, additions, and substitutions are fine as long as you aren't claiming to be an Ed Parker System Kenpo school.  If you leave stuff out then you aren't teaching EPAK.  That's okay so long as you can justify what you teach by theory and what you removed by theory.


----------

