# Tracy Kenpo vs. EPAK



## shane23ss (Jan 5, 2005)

I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I couldn't find it. I've never seen nor trained with any Tracy Kenpoist, so I have this question.
How different is Tracy Kenpo from EPAK? What are the major differences? Technique names, the technique itself, etc.?


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 5, 2005)

Tracy = Generally bigger circles, no active checking, but plenty of positional and passive checks. Biggest thing is that it is generally a technique driven system, with 600+ techniques. 

 EPAK = Motion or Principle driven system. It is hard to explain this without showing you. I have done both. Seven years in a Tracy derived system and 18 or so in a later SGM Parker system. Smaller circles, more "relaxed" explosive motion (generally), actively learn why you move in a certain way and don't stop at the what you do. 

  Someone more articulate or with more time should take a stab at this.  And yes this horse has been well beaten :deadhorse

  -Michael


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 5, 2005)

Mr. Billings, 

Which system do you prefer? Do you think it would be easy or confusing for some one to transition from one of the sytems to the other?

Thank you for your response. I figured this had been beat to death, just wondering.


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Jan 5, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Tracy = Generally bigger circles, no active checking, but plenty of positional and passive checks. Biggest thing is that it is generally a technique driven system, with 600+ techniques.
> 
> EPAK = Motion or Principle driven system. It is hard to explain this without showing you. I have done both. Seven years in a Tracy derived system and 18 or so in a later SGM Parker system. Smaller circles, more "relaxed" explosive motion (generally), actively learn why you move in a certain way and don't stop at the what you do.
> 
> ...


Mr. Billings,

I ain't passive, my checking account is quite active, thank you.........., and don't call me a horse, either.  That will invite someone, whose name I will not mention.


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Jan 5, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I couldn't find it. I've never seen nor trained with any Tracy Kenpoist, so I have this question.
> How different is Tracy Kenpo from EPAK? What are the major differences? Technique names, the technique itself, etc.?


Way ta go Shane. Now all the Aker's are gonna come after me.:anic:


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 5, 2005)

Dr. Kenpo said:
			
		

> Way ta go Shane. Now all the Aker's are gonna come after me.:anic:


Sorry brother, just trying to get edumicated.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 6, 2005)

Played with some Tracy guys, and come from an older version of kenpo myself (post-Tracy/Parker split, but pre- IKKA EPAK/Motion Kenpo). Have since trained a bit with AK gents, and there are some significantly noticeable differences.

As pointed out earlier, circle size is a huge one. I still have a hard time embracing that whole "rounding off edges..." thing, because I just don't feel like I'm getting the "whack" I want with smaller circles. In support of that, I've seen too many EPAK guys go straight to shorthand without learning the block print first, and hence are unable to be efficient with their smaller circles (read: "can't hit hard"). Even as those words hit the page, though, I know I gotta cover my ****, because I've met many EPAK gentleman who were the exact opposite: teensy-weensy circles that land blows like thunder.

The check-thing is also big. In old kenpo (commercial, at least) there was more of a "more ordnance" mentality. More bullets = better chance of success. Screw controlling the oponent; just point bigger, faster guns in his direction, and start whacking. In the newer schools not reflected in Tracy cirriculum, more emphasis on containing the opponent in a controlled field of possible options until such time as you're done with him. Takes deeper understanding and more attention to detail.  Unfortunately, on a recent road trip, I saw that even EPAK guys are drifting into the realm of not controlling the opponent, and just tossing multiple blows in their direction, hoping the reaction times expressed in the control mechanisms happen magically.

Best way to get a comparison is to hang out with an EPAK rep (a good one) for a couple afternoons & weekends, and compare notes. Train in the tecniques, and note how the setups, transitions, and executions differ (compare the levels of thoughtfulness necessary to make each work).

To feel is to believe. The rest is merly academic, which doesn't help. All kenpo is not created equal; explore, learn, and pass it on.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 6, 2005)

Good response Dave.:asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 6, 2005)

Going from Tracy to Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate was difficult for me.  As pointed out, with smaller circles you have less distance to travel on the arc.  Since power is a function of mass X velocity, you have less distance in which to generate an equivalent amount of power.  This is a subtley lost on many EPAK and Tracy practitioners.  

 If you are a Tracy model-trained guy, then you don't know how to generate the power in other ways, as noted above.  It is not that you cannot, you just have not been taught.  Unfortunately the same can be said of much of the EPAK that is marketed today also. 

 EPAK - which Mr. Parker never used, but was created to distinguish another developmental level Mr. Parker took Kenpo to, also sometimes called Motion or Principle driven Kenpo.  It uses many more concepts or principles from physics and kinesiology to generate the power.  There is much more of a whipping action with the hips, it takes the stops and starts out, and relaxed explosive power in bursts (rather than as a steamroller going faster & harder as you progress).  Musculature is also emphasized, in terms of there being a lot more tension/relaxation, allowing the limbs "weight" to be part of the natural weapon instead of being suspended (in part by our own muscular tension).

 This is a poor explanation - something I can show you in 30 seconds of comparative movement is extemely hard to put into words.  I am much older than when I started, less muscled, and I would venture that I am probably actually measurably slower than I was 25 years ago when I started.  None-the-less, I promise I hit harder now, with much less work involved, and my instructors and students would probably say I am faster now than I was 15 years ago.  Remember relaxed muscles are faster than ones under strain.

 Sorry for the long winded not so good explanation.  I promise you know the difference when you see it.  Chinese Kenpo can be a thing of beauty, with devestating power, EPAK can be the same.  

 BOTH can look just horrible and the practitioner not know it ... basically because "you just don't know, what you don't know."  

 -Michael


----------



## donald (Jan 6, 2005)

I began in a Tracy's studio, but in a program that was very heavily influenced by Mr.Parker's applications. The owner/head instructor was the catalyst that brought Mr.Parker,Mr.Wedlake, and Mr.Palanzo to the greater Cleveland area. For seminars,testing,and privates back in the mid to late 80's. I was taught to tighten up our delivery paths(i.e.smaller circles)etc.. I have witnessed a shift back to the old ways,(i.e.Lg.circles),of executing techniques. Presumably for (oh,oohh,ooohhh)MORE POWER... I witnessed this phenom at a VERY senior instructor's seminars. I wanted to ask him why the 180*, but not being a anybody. I just kept my mouth shut, and went with the program. Is this a wide spread change up, or does it pretty much depend on the instuctor?


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 6, 2005)

I totally concur with Mr. Billings.. 
Transitioning from Tracy to EPAK is Un-learning many things for me. Not necessarily Bad habits.. but EPAK (at least in the IKKO curriculum) is very 'Basic oriented', no matter what belt level someone is. Hitting the Neutral bow dead on, not violating Point of origin, ( In Tracy Kenpo, P.O.O. is rather obscure, with the larger scope of broader, circuler movements) etc.

Tracy techniques are just fine, but again.. the shortening of movements, explosiveness of EPAK, utilizing paths of motion, marriage of gravity, the lists go on..
EPAK makes you think 


:asian:

~Tess


----------



## WhiteTiger (Jan 6, 2005)

My experience is somewhat different than those expressed above.  There seems to be some confussion between style and method.  Every kenpoist stylises their kenpo in their own way.  Large Strong people tend to shorten movements and rely on their strength, smaller people must develop technique in order to overcome the stregth disadvantage.  I have seen Tracy's practitioners who round off their blocks and strikes and EPAK guys which use a more circular movement than others.  Taught properly the the two systems are more alike than not, the differances are primarily centered around the method in which the system is taught rather than the application of self defense.  Some would say that EPAK encourages it's practitioners to experiment more and ask "what if";  Tracy's does also but it is somewhat suppressed until Brown Belt levels, the thought being you should not experiment until you have a strong foundation to draw from.
The more important factor is the instructor, can the instructor teach you to make all of the self defense techniques work.  Note: I did not say can your instructor make all the techniques work.  But can he/she teach you, to do so.  Is it explained clearly can they answer the tough questions.  In my experience big guys who teach little guys are rarely able to do so.

Just my personal observation....


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 6, 2005)

WhiteTiger said:
			
		

> My experience is somewhat different than those expressed above. There seems to be some confussion between style and method. Every kenpoist stylises their kenpo in their own way. Large Strong people tend to shorten movements and rely on their strength, smaller people must develop technique in order to overcome the stregth disadvantage. I have seen Tracy's practitioners who round off their blocks and strikes and EPAK guys which use a more circular movement than others. Taught properly the the two systems are more alike than not, the differances are primarily centered around the method in which the system is taught rather than the application of self defense. Some would say that EPAK encourages it's practitioners to experiment more and ask "what if"; Tracy's does also but it is somewhat suppressed until Brown Belt levels, the thought being you should not experiment until you have a strong foundation to draw from.
> The more important factor is the instructor, can the instructor teach you to make all of the self defense techniques work. Note: I did not say can your instructor make all the techniques work. But can he/she teach you, to do so. Is it explained clearly can they answer the tough questions. In my experience big guys who teach little guys are rarely able to do so.
> 
> Just my personal observation....


 Sorry I have to disagree a bit here, but they just are not the same.  I never said I could not make the Chinese Kenpo work.  It was great and after 7-8 years I was fairly proficient for someone with that little time in the art.  It is a different way of moving.  Once again (and I hate to sound like Doc), but you just don't know the difference if you have never seen it.  I saw someone like Sigung LaBounty, or Gary Swan (a strong part of my lineage) doing an older version of Kenpo, then saw Sibok Tom Kelly, Dennis Conatser, Howard Silva, or Ed Parker doing a more recent version.  The gross technique is/was the same ... but the method of execution was like night and day.  

 That is my personal experience in both versions.

 -Michael


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 6, 2005)

It sounds like the people here that have done both prefer the Parker system. I have never trained in Tracy Kenpo nor seen anyone. Another question I have is; given all conditions are equal, which would take longer to progress in?


----------



## Fastmover (Jan 6, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Sorry I have to disagree a bit here, but they just are not the same.  I never said I could not make the Chinese Kenpo work.  It was great and after 7-8 years I was fairly proficient for someone with that little time in the art.  It is a different way of moving.  Once again (and I hate to sound like Doc), but you just don't know the difference if you have never seen it.  I saw someone like Sigung LaBounty, or Gary Swan (a strong part of my lineage) doing an older version of Kenpo, then saw Sibok Tom Kelly, Dennis Conatser, Howard Silva, or Ed Parker doing a more recent version.  The gross technique is/was the same ... but the method of execution was like night and day.
> 
> That is my personal experience in both versions.
> 
> -Michael



Older Version of Kenpo???? Are you tryiing to tell me that Kenpo changed
through the years? I guess all these guys doing the recent version didnt
understand the older version and had to change it.........;-)


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 6, 2005)

Fastmover said:
			
		

> Older Version of Kenpo???? Are you tryiing to tell me that Kenpo changed
> through the years? I guess all these guys doing the recent version didnt
> understand the older version and had to change it.........;-)


Or kept up with advances in technology, and avoided bringing a knife to a laser satellite fight?

One of the things that's missing in PUBLIC EPAK is the establishment of solid basics, *prior* to shortening circles & rounding edges. Lotsa guys see the smaller circles of the oldsters, and mimic it without recognition of the process engaged in to reach that point. First we learn to print, then handwrite, then shorthand. The lack of power I see in the EPAK folk that can't hit worth a dang comes from jumping straight to shorthand, because their upline seniors are doing it, ..."so I should do it to". Newbies on this route never develop the muscle memory necesary for effective motion. You gotta have a move, before you can economize it.

Walking your own kenpo journey still starts at a beginning. The newer conceptual/motion kenpo works best for those who start slow, and pay attention to quality and detail. Print first. The guys who jump to shorthand to look quick & snappy, but can't break through wet toilet paper with their hits, are the ones who bring the quality of the ART into question. So, what is the difference between ART, and PRACTICE?

D.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 6, 2005)

EPAK = 1980's = yesterday
Tracy's = 1960's = day before yesterday

Yesterday was a good day.  So was the day before yesterday.


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 6, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Or kept up with advances in technology, and avoided bringing a knife to a laser satellite fight?
> 
> One of the things that's missing in PUBLIC EPAK is the establishment of solid basics, *prior* to shortening circles & rounding edges. Lotsa guys see the smaller circles of the oldsters, and mimic it without recognition of the process engaged in to reach that point. First we learn to print, then handwrite, then shorthand. The lack of power I see in the EPAK folk that can't hit worth a dang comes from jumping straight to shorthand, because their upline seniors are doing it, ..."so I should do it to". Newbies on this route never develop the muscle memory necesary for effective motion. You gotta have a move, before you can economize it.
> 
> ...



Dr. Dave, you said it all. We do the exact same in our system. As a matter of fact, in reference to the 'can't break through toilet paper' saying, we say, 'their hands are going 100 mph but they're not going anywhere'. I always stress that you learn the big circular movements first for two reasons: 1) it's easier to learn that way 2) you'll be more efficient when you make them smaller, same with short power in linear motion, we teach the full range motion first to develop maximum power in a punch/strike then once the student establishes a pretty good foundation with that, they adapt it to short power. I stress to them that they can't learn short first before developing the full range of motion, otherwise they will fail to generate maximum power. I also stress that in one's lust for speed don't let your hands get ahead of your hips or you lose that important connection at the waist of bringing power from the lower body up into the upper body. This also occurs when the basics aren't fully developed and the student prematurely begins rapid fire techniques. We call this the third eye concept, third eye being the hips. Problem is, as you stated, too many are quick to jump over the basics and as you are well aware of, fighting is all about the basics, black belt is 'mastery' of the basics but there are so called 'masters' out there who have never mastered the #1 priority of the martial arts-BASICS!!! Some are just in too much of a hurry to 'look the look', problem is, 'they can't walk the walk'. Prof. Joe


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 6, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> EPAK = 1980's = yesterday
> Tracy's = 1960's = day before yesterday
> 
> Yesterday was a good day. So was the day before yesterday.


Ayup. Lets hope tomorrow is also a good day. I worry that the presence of so much degree-by-mail stuff in kenpo is progressively peeing away the integrity of the art, in all its various manifestations. Very few Seniors more interested in quality, than a buck. We should seek, as a consumer public, to reniforce the actions of those representing quality by participating in their presentations of knowledge.

D.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 6, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> ... Once again (and I hate to sound like Doc), but you just don't know the difference if you have never seen it. ...
> -Michael


Excellent point(s). And I can think of many people it would be worse to sound like than Doc. Although abrasive to those without an ear to hear, he'll be the first to tell you that you gotta have wings before you can fly; basics, in strength, are the oft-missing diety of our avocation.

Dave


----------



## distalero (Jan 6, 2005)

"One of the things that's missing in PUBLIC EPAK is the establishment of solid basics, *prior* to shortening circles & rounding edges. Lotsa guys see the smaller circles of the oldsters, and mimic it without recognition of the process engaged in to reach that point. First we learn to print, then handwrite, then shorthand. The lack of power I see in the EPAK folk that can't hit worth a dang comes from jumping straight to shorthand, because their upline seniors are doing it, ..."so I should do it to". Newbies on this route never develop the muscle memory necesary for effective motion. You gotta have a move, before you can economize it.

Walking your own kenpo journey still starts at a beginning. The newer conceptual/motion kenpo works best for those who start slow, and pay attention to quality and detail. Print first. The guys who jump to shorthand to look quick & snappy, but can't break through wet toilet paper with their hits, are the ones who bring the quality of the ART into question. So, what is the difference between ART, and PRACTICE?"



If I may, and to add my voice to yours, the reasoning in the "old" days ( prior to AK) and in my neck of the woods, was that whatever frament or portion of a technique was actually used would "round off" and shorten up of it's own accord in the fear and adrenaline rush of a fight. It was never judged necessary (flashy and fun/suitable for demos, yes, but certainly not necessary) to  practice shortening things up as some sort of advanced level . Doing full motion, fast, was the impressive thing (harder than it sounds; for me anyhow); shortening movement in practice was considered at best just a bad habit. At worst, dangerous, for the reasons you referred to.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 6, 2005)

WhiteTiger said:
			
		

> My experience is somewhat different than those expressed above.  There seems to be some confussion between style and method.  Every kenpoist stylises their kenpo in their own way.  Large Strong people tend to shorten movements and rely on their strength, smaller people must develop technique in order to overcome the stregth disadvantage.  I have seen Tracy's practitioners who round off their blocks and strikes and EPAK guys which use a more circular movement than others.  Taught properly the the two systems are more alike than not, the differances are primarily centered around the method in which the system is taught rather than the application of self defense.  Some would say that EPAK encourages it's practitioners to experiment more and ask "what if";  Tracy's does also but it is somewhat suppressed until Brown Belt levels, the thought being you should not experiment until you have a strong foundation to draw from.
> The more important factor is the instructor, can the instructor teach you to make all of the self defense techniques work.  Note: I did not say can your instructor make all the techniques work.  But can he/she teach you, to do so.  Is it explained clearly can they answer the tough questions.  In my experience big guys who teach little guys are rarely able to do so.
> 
> Just my personal observation....



I agree here.  Most of the criticisms I see of either style sound to me like the critic did not have the right instructor.

BTW, Roger Greene is a big guy, and I saw him double the power of a 95 pound woman's punch in one 3 hour seminar.  The bigger guys were rocking...


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 6, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> If I may, and to add my voice to yours, the reasoning in the "old" days ( prior to AK) and in my neck of the woods, was that whatever frament or portion of a technique was actually used would "round off" and shorten up of it's own accord in the fear and adrenaline rush of a fight. It was never judged necessary (flashy and fun/suitable for demos, yes, but certainly not necessary) to  practice shortening things up as some sort of advanced level . Doing full motion, fast, was the impressive thing (harder than it sounds; for me anyhow); shortening movement in practice was considered at best just a bad habit. At worst, dangerous, for the reasons you referred to.



Excellent.  There is that which is pragmatic and that which is developmental and there is some overlap.  But it is an important distinction.


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 6, 2005)

Quote from distalero: If I may, and to add my voice to yours, the reasoning in the "old" days ( prior to AK) and in my neck of the woods, was that whatever frament or portion of a technique was actually used would "round off" and shorten up of it's own accord in the fear and adrenaline rush of a fight. It was never judged necessary (flashy and fun/suitable for demos, yes, but certainly not necessary) to practice shortening things up as some sort of advanced level . Doing full motion, fast, was the impressive thing (harder than it sounds; for me anyhow); shortening movement in practice was considered at best just a bad habit. At worst, dangerous, for the reasons you referred to.

I say: I agree with the fact that only fragments or portions of techniques are used in reality fighting-that's a given due to the dynamics of fighting but in moments of stress we will react to previous learned behavior, that has been proven and is the premise in the defensive tactics training of police officers and ofcourse special ops. We are what we eat and how we train is how we will react. If shorter movements are what is used in most combative situations then we should train in shorter movements. By the same token, there will be times when longer movements are applicable, therefore, a well balanced training regimen should consist of both concepts.


----------



## GAB (Jan 7, 2005)

Fastmover said:
			
		

> Older Version of Kenpo???? Are you tryiing to tell me that Kenpo changed
> through the years? I guess all these guys doing the recent version didnt
> understand the older version and had to change it.........;-)


Hi, 

Was'nt one of the things EP was disapointed in his Black belts was there lack of ability, not to see that changing some things was not "bad" but good.

Each Black belt was to go out and do the kenpo in a way that suited his or hers body style, strength and weakness's.

Not just to mimic and stagnate, not to not think, and not stay in the confines of what he taught them. 

JKD (Bruce Lee) or FMA (Guro Dan) both of them were very much influnced by EP. I also believe Guro Dan influeinced Bruce also. They were a complement to EP and each other.

So in essence when you see the 2 mentioned arts it is with pleasure that EP would watch and say, "I taught them that and they incorporated it into what they are doing, I am proud". Not the other way around.

Just like a musician who has a song and he does it, it becomes a hit. Someone else sings it, and adds a little of there own style, it is a complement.

To stagnate was not what he wanted...Water flows around a rock and continues to the next bend, it is versatile, used for many things and different applications.

I believe that is the thing that he was unable to understand, don't be a xerox machine be an artist. 

So EPAK is change and Tracy is no change. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 7, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> So EPAK is change and Tracy is no change.
> 
> Regards, Gary



Being that you study NEITHER, I would like to point out that your statement is crap.  It is an extremely broad generalization.  There have been changes in the Tracy Curriculum since I began.  I don't know if the curriculum of EPAKK has changed, but I do know that many instructors teach what they call a newer flavor.

Does kenpo need to change?  Again, perhaps the method of training or methods of teaching are updated constantly, but the kenpo remains.  If not, well, it's not kenpo.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 7, 2005)

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 Thanks,
 Michael Billings
  MT S-Moderator


----------



## donald (Jan 7, 2005)

Having worked in both systems. I have to agree with White Tiger's post. I have seen, and had the honor of working with some excellent instructors from both systems. It(in my opinion)truly depends on the approach of the instructor. I think that generally the studios that teach the Tracy system are more straight forward in thier application. Where as a EPAK studio tends to present thier version with more principles in mind. Either way can be beneficial, or detremental. It just truly depends on the presentation, and skill of the instructors involved.

By His Grace
1st John1:9


----------



## koga ha (Jan 7, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Was'nt one of the things EP was disapointed in his Black belts was there lack of ability, not to see that changing some things was not "bad" but good.
> 
> ...


when changing or adding new flavor, whatever you want to call it...one thing you may want to keep in mind or think about...when you take a system that is hundreds or thousands of years old and change it, the art will eventually become diluted and disjointed. 

people long before you and me have given their time, blood, or life using and developing techniques within a given system. and to have someone come along and put their personal spin on techniques...interesting how that would be looked at as a good thing.

however, i would have to retract my statement if i ever come across a human with four arms and three legs...yeah, there is probably a need to tweak the system.

ah, too long of an opinion...sorry

disclaimer: i'm only speaking on my behalf and don't necessarily reflect the views of individuals on this board :uhyeah:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 7, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Ayup. Lets hope tomorrow is also a good day. I worry that the presence of so much degree-by-mail stuff in kenpo is progressively peeing away the integrity of the art, in all its various manifestations. Very few Seniors more interested in quality, than a buck. We should seek, as a consumer public, to reniforce the actions of those representing quality by participating in their presentations of knowledge.
> 
> D.



Yes, tomorrow will be better than today.  Today is better than yesterday.  Today is not Kenpo's day.  Nor will it be tomorrow.  %think%


----------



## The Kai (Jan 7, 2005)

First off if you believe the systems of martial arts that are popular today are thousands of years old, you got another thing coming.


Second there is not 1 art that you see today that has not been altered in some way.  From how kicks are done to stances to conditioning methods, the use of pads in striking drills.  Sparring equipment. how has that changed thing?

Thirdly an art has to be adjusted say every 10,000 years or so.  Even the wheel has been updated!

Todd


----------



## koga ha (Jan 7, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> First off if you believe the systems of martial arts that are popular today are thousands of years old, you got another thing coming.
> 
> 
> Second there is not 1 art that you see today that has not been altered in some way. From how kicks are done to stances to conditioning methods, the use of pads in striking drills. Sparring equipment. how has that changed thing?
> ...


actually, i agree with you on the first statement, however; the second statement is to inclusive.  maybe that is your experience, so i'll leave that alone.

out of curiosity, what adjustments have to be made every 10k years?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 7, 2005)

koga ha said:
			
		

> out of curiosity, what adjustments have to be made every 10k years?



Obviously, every 10,000 years you have to adjust for an ice age.  :viking1:


----------



## The Kai (Jan 7, 2005)

The attacker, look ow boxing has changed in the last 100 years- Being brought in a culture of boxing and televised wrestling (real or not) gives people a few tools that they did'nt have.
As a Martial Artist understand that your capicity to learn, grow and realize what the arts are capable of (Pressure points, or SL4) has been dramitically altered in the last 30 years
Todd


----------



## koga ha (Jan 7, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> The attacker, look ow boxing has changed in the last 100 years- Being brought in a culture of boxing and televised wrestling (real or not) gives people a few tools that they did'nt have.
> As a Martial Artist understand that your capicity to learn, grow and realize what the arts are capable of (Pressure points, or SL4) has been dramitically altered in the last 30 years
> Todd


however, a straight line is still a straight line, a 90 degree angle is still a 90 degree angle, and so on and so forth.  in other words, strikes/punches can only come from certain angles.

would you call it altered or increasing your knowledge?


----------



## pete (Jan 7, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Obviously, every 10,000 years you have to adjust for an ice age. :viking1:


  i must begin training in a parka and golashes... i believe that would qualify as "environmental kenpo" 

pete


----------



## The Kai (Jan 7, 2005)

koga ha said:
			
		

> however, a straight line is still a straight line, a 90 degree angle is still a 90 degree angle, and so on and so forth. in other words, strikes/punches can only come from certain angles.
> 
> would you call it altered or increasing your knowledge?


I think the issue is that in the simplest terms, yes a straight line is still a straight line.  Also true 0 and 1 are only 0 and 1 yet lookis what we can do with them!  The timing of the attack, the point of origin, americans increasing famaliarity with the Martial Arts(albiet thru TV and Movies),
There is a difference in a feudal art form that relies on hand to hand only when in the rare cases you are without weapons.  Now days not to many of are armed or armored.
While a straight punch is a straight punch, there is a difference between the straight punch thrown by a Shtokan stylist and a boxer!  But, yet they are technically the same motion.  allthought the timing, retraction and "intent" differ. 

Look at the art of streching and conditioning, has this not changed in the last 30 years?  remeber at one time it was encouraged for Karate stylist to pound thier fists till the first and second knuckles were even (probaly a throw back to when you needed to punch thru armor).  Look thru some of the 1st books published in the states, or read the Bubashi (spelling).  Compare to where we are now.

While I'm not the most experience of all people I have managed to be around a little
Thanks
Todd


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 7, 2005)

Hello everyone, I'm new here, and this is my first official post.



I don't mean to insult anyone, nor am I deliberately trying to be argumentative, but I'm in Tracey Kenpo and most of what you guys are saying about the smaller circles, marriage of gravity, etc. is true in my system as well.  We tend to be part progressive, part traditional.

Our basics maintain our traditional origins, while our techniques are progressive and changing.  Even at white-belt level, my instructor showed me the rising (upward) block, and I had already learned one version of it from a friend of mine in ITF TKD.  This version started with the fist moving in a straight upward in a verticle motion, guiding your arm like a missle, then the rest of your arm snaps outward horizontally to provide the full coverage.  He agreed that this was better than having the arm horizontal to begin with, and bringing it up horizontal the whole way.

I really think that the only serious difference between EPAK and TK is the names of the techniques, and to some degree, the order in which they're learnt.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 8, 2005)

RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> Hello everyone, I'm new here, and this is my first official post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spoken like someone who spends more time rolling "natural 20's" than rolling on the mat.


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 8, 2005)

I'd like to jump in on the debate with Todd and Koga ha. Imho, Todd is correct in the sense that there is no way 'man' could ever practice a martial art all these centuries and not change it, it's the nature of the beast and it applies to the technological advances of mankind also. I mean we're not exactly commuting to work in donkey carts and we are certainly not communicating right now by carrier pigeon (unless of course you live in the middle east, lol). It's the natural progression of life in general, mankind is constantly evolving, never stagnant and this carries over into it's martial arts.

Originally Posted by koga ha
however, a straight line is still a straight line, a 90 degree angle is still a 90 degree angle, and so on and so forth. in other words, strikes/punches can only come from certain angles.

would you call it altered or increasing your knowledge? 

I also understand koga ha's response in the above quote. It's not so much kenpo is evolving, it was always there, 'everything', it's our 'understanding' of kenpo that is actively changing or evolving. As stated in a previous post, human beings naturally have two arms and two legs and martial arts are based on that premise as applied to natural laws. Physics, kiniesiology, body mechcanics, the body in motion and because this is technically a science, we're not 'inventing' anything but discovering applications that have been there since the beginning of the creation of this world. It's the 'way things run'. So, yes, the 'rudiments' or 'natural laws' of all techniques never change but it's our understanding on how to apply them efficiently to changing situations that changes.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 8, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> I'd like to jump in on the debate with Todd and Koga ha. Imho, Todd is correct in the sense that there is no way 'man' could ever practice a martial art all these centuries and not change it, it's the nature of the beast and it applies to the technological advances of mankind also. I mean we're not exactly commuting to work in donkey carts and we are certainly not communicating right now by carrier pigeon (unless of course you live in the middle east, lol). It's the natural progression of life in general, mankind is constantly evolving, never stagnant and this carries over into it's martial arts.
> 
> Originally Posted by koga ha
> however, a straight line is still a straight line, a 90 degree angle is still a 90 degree angle, and so on and so forth. in other words, strikes/punches can only come from certain angles.
> ...


Damm, you are one well spoken fellow!!  Very good post.  30 years ago would the stuff Doc, Tony Annesi or Bruce Juchnik been recieved?  To quote Steve Muhhammed "Mr Parker left us with a wonderfull, thing we are just begining to understand it"  I think this applies across the board
Todd


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Jan 8, 2005)

When it's all said, and done, and I know you'll agree, both do well. Based on the Tracy, and Ak people that I've talked to, that when those that have had violent encounters, they've have always come out on top!

SGM Parker, and Master Tracy have also said, it's the man, not the art, and though I'm a Tracy person, I've learned from both sides, and also learn from others here. As long as "we"  kenpoists come out as victors, we all win.:asian:


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 8, 2005)

Thanks, Todd. Dr. Kenpo, agreed, it's the man, not the art. It does help to have a nicely balanced and well rounded system, that's a given, but the determining factor in defending yourself is by all means-the individual!


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 8, 2005)

Todd, there's a name from the past. Tony Annesi doesn't live too far from me at all or at least he used to last I knew, think he still does, Ashland, Ma. He once wrote a helluva an article in one of the karate mags (it had to be over 15 years ago) comparing Ed Parker and Fred Villari in what they did for propagation of kenpo in their perspective systems. I took it as an open and honest but positive article (directed toward their detractors) that in my opinion, neither man would have been upset with at all. Although, he never referred to them by name per se. He used: Freddy V. and Eddie P., so take it from there, lol.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 9, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> "Mr Parker left us with a wonderfull, thing we are just begining to understand it"  I think this applies across the board
> Todd



Someone else once said that the true genius of Ed Parker was recognizing what was already there.

Does kenpo evolve?  Or does our understanding of it evolve?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 9, 2005)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> Someone else once said that the true genius of Ed Parker was recognizing what was already there.
> 
> Does kenpo evolve? Or does our understanding of it evolve?


Yes to both. AK-ers who try to keep the standards static miss out on some extreeeemly interesting modifications in kenpo.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 9, 2005)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> Someone else once said that the true genius of Ed Parker was recognizing what was already there.
> 
> Does kenpo evolve?  Or does our understanding of it evolve?



Yes indeed.  Kenpo study could be thought of just like archeology.  The longer we study what the dead wrote and said, the more we understand what they were thinking.


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Was'nt one of the things EP was disapointed in his Black belts was there lack of ability, not to see that changing some things was not "bad" but good.
> 
> ...


 
Hi KenpoDave,

So EPAK is change and Tracy is no change.  ????

There should have been a question mark at the end...

Type O...

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> EPAK = 1980's = yesterday
> Tracy's = 1960's = day before yesterday
> 
> Yesterday was a good day. So was the day before yesterday.


Hi Kenpo Dave,

Did you read this???

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> Being that you study NEITHER, I would like to point out that your statement is crap. It is an extremely broad generalization. There have been changes in the Tracy Curriculum since I began. I don't know if the curriculum of EPAKK has changed, but I do know that many instructors teach what they call a newer flavor.
> 
> Does kenpo need to change? Again, perhaps the method of training or methods of teaching are updated constantly, but the kenpo remains. If not, well, it's not kenpo.


 
Hi Kenpo Dave,

Wrong on most of what you said, especially regarding me. 
I don't know you and you don't know me. 

I do know several who have studied both, I also read and sometimes make mistakes in typing.  

I am not an expert but if Tracy's Kenpo is "Kenpo" why did he change it from his original teacher if it is Kenpo?

His teacher changed it from his teacher and called it AK. That teacher changed it from his teacher. And so forth...

Then Al Tracy found it, when Mitose was found??? Right???

Regards, Gary


----------



## Seig (Jan 9, 2005)

Gary, I am not sure if you are being argumentative to gain knowledge or to just argue, but I will answer you.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Kenpo Dave,
> 
> Wrong on most of what you said, especially regarding me.
> I don't know you and you don't know me.
> ...


I cannot refute that, I have studied both.


> I am not an expert but if Tracy's Kenpo is "Kenpo" why did he change it from his original teacher if it is Kenpo?


You know full well that the word Kenpo has become generic, much as Karate has. When the Tracy brothers left Mr. Parker they had the curriculuum he had at the time. Since they were interested in expansion, to make it financially viable, they had to offer more than they had at the time, therby expanding their own curriculuum. They were now in competition with Mr. Parker and to expand their offerings. Tracy's Kenpo was their interpretation of what they were doing based on Mr. Parker's teachings, at the time.


> His teacher changed it from his teacher and called it AK. That teacher changed it from his teacher. And so forth...


That all depends on the instructor you are dealing with. When Mr. Parker was developping his system, it was indeed very different from what he learned from Professor Chow. Mr. Parker had influences from many of the great Masters of the era, not just one or two.


> Then Al Tracy found it, when Mitose was found??? Right???
> 
> Regards, Gary


I'm not sure what you are asking or implying here.


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

Hi Seig:

I tried earlier to post and had a good one going and accidently flushed it.

I will get back later.

I would like to hear from KenpoDave on this though.

I have a 2 hour training session with Sensei George Santana.

KenpoDave have you heard of him???

Regards, Gary


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 9, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Kenpo Dave,
> 
> Wrong on most of what you said, especially regarding me.
> I don't know you and you don't know me.
> ...



What I said was being that you study neither Tracy's or Parker's, your statement was crap.  Later, you added question marks, which changes you from making a statement to asking a question.  That is different.

Since I was mostly wrong, I must ask, which do you study, Tracy's or Parker's?


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 9, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> I am not an expert but if Tracy's Kenpo is "Kenpo" why did he change it from his original teacher if it is Kenpo?



You said "Parker is change and Tracy is no change."  Now you are wanting to know why Tracy's changed?  If you were a student of either art, you would not go back and forth so often in your ramblings.



> His teacher changed it from his teacher and called it AK. That teacher changed it from his teacher. And so forth...
> 
> Then Al Tracy found it, when Mitose was found??? Right???



Are you trying to make a point?  Al Tracy found what when Mitose was found?

Yes, I know who George Santana is, and it is good to see that your agenda is staying consistent.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jan 9, 2005)

LOL...... Oh my gosh....... you guys are just too funny...


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> What I said was being that you study neither Tracy's or Parker's, your statement was crap. Later, you added question marks, which changes you from making a statement to asking a question. That is different.
> 
> Since I was mostly wrong, I must ask, which do you study, Tracy's or Parker's?


Hi KenpoDave

I study both, practice FMA.

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Jan 9, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> LOL...... Oh my gosh....... you guys are just too funny...


Hi,

Yes, it appears that way.

Regards, Gary


----------



## koga ha (Jan 10, 2005)

Karazenpo said:
			
		

> I'd like to jump in on the debate with Todd and Koga ha. Imho, Todd is correct in the sense that there is no way 'man' could ever practice a martial art all these centuries and not change it, it's the nature of the beast and it applies to the technological advances of mankind also. I mean we're not exactly commuting to work in donkey carts and we are certainly not communicating right now by carrier pigeon (unless of course you live in the middle east, lol). It's the natural progression of life in general, mankind is constantly evolving, never stagnant and this carries over into it's martial arts.
> 
> Originally Posted by koga ha
> however, a straight line is still a straight line, a 90 degree angle is still a 90 degree angle, and so on and so forth. in other words, strikes/punches can only come from certain angles.
> ...


ahh, someone sees...anyway, sorry to bring everyone into last week.


----------



## koga ha (Jan 10, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> I think the issue is that in the simplest terms, yes a straight line is still a straight line. Also true 0 and 1 are only 0 and 1 yet lookis what we can do with them! The timing of the attack, the point of origin, americans increasing famaliarity with the Martial Arts(albiet thru TV and Movies),
> There is a difference in a feudal art form that relies on hand to hand only when in the rare cases you are without weapons. Now days not to many of are armed or armored.
> While a straight punch is a straight punch, there is a difference between the straight punch thrown by a Shtokan stylist and a boxer! But, yet they are technically the same motion. allthought the timing, retraction and "intent" differ.
> 
> ...


somone said a mouthful!  well, there is no other term when talking about a straight line; a straight line is a straight line, 180 degrees.  if that line changes than it's different [it's not straight]. so, technically a straight punch thrown by either stylist is still striaght.  

in regards to conditioning, i can say that my conditioning is the same today as it was 30 years ago.  however, some of the equipment has changed.  instead of using straw to tie something down we use plastic ties.  oh, i didn't know that pounding your knuckles was not encourged anymore.  well, i've learned one thing.  your conditioning and my conditioning are different.

todd, thanks for the discussion.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

While you are correct in that a straight line is a straight line, again the angles timing, targets all differ.  If you work this in a class room things are pretty controlled (Sensei called this the ideal stage).  Sometimes people get complacent at this point at how easy it is to controll an opponent!


30 years ago we did duck walks, bunny hops and forced strechs.  BTW I don't really know what your conditioning ar training entail so it's hard to make a comparision.

todd


----------



## Karazenpo (Jan 10, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> While you are correct in that a straight line is a straight line, again the angles timing, targets all differ.  If you work this in a class room things are pretty controlled (Sensei called this the ideal stage).  Sometimes people get complacent at this point at how easy it is to controll an opponent!
> 
> 
> 30 years ago we did duck walks, bunny hops and forced strechs.  BTW I don't really know what your conditioning ar training entail so it's hard to make a comparision.
> ...



Hey Todd, those duck walks and bunny hops we're something else, weren't they?,lol. We still use them at my school and they're part of most tests. Prof. Joe


----------



## koga ha (Jan 10, 2005)

sorry, i didn't see where you mentioned angles.  nonetheless, lines, angles, and targets all differ, but as humans we are bound to movements that fall along those lines and angles.  

you talk about change and that it's necessary, so why are men, women, and *children* being taught 101 ways to damage or terminate a human being without teaching the legal ramifications and the minimum and maximum effects of strikes/punches. 

i hate to pin that last comment on you because you may very well be doing that; however, it does make for an interesting conversation.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

Right with Kenpo comes a lot of responsability, we have had classroom discussions based on news items or incidents!  


While you may think that every attack will fall within the lines and angles that you are comfortable with is somewhat limited in application.  The uppercutt thrown by a Hung gar Stlist vs the uppercut by a Kickboxer same punch right??  Try pulling the exact defense off on both techinques.  When sparring you are forced to adapt, take things out of the Class Rooom Model (Ideal Phase) into a more free response.

Joe, we too still pull out the bunny hops once in a great while, when it's not to cold out!
Todd


----------



## koga ha (Jan 10, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Right with Kenpo comes a lot of responsability, we have had classroom discussions based on news items or incidents!
> 
> 
> While you may think that every attack will fall within the lines and angles that you are comfortable with is somewhat limited in application. The uppercutt thrown by a Hung gar Stlist vs the uppercut by a Kickboxer same punch right?? Try pulling the exact defense off on both techinques. When sparring you are forced to adapt, take things out of the Class Rooom Model (Ideal Phase) into a more free response.
> ...


what stops a vertical....a horizontal. how can that be limited, sounds simple to me. and that's only half of the equation.

well, it looks like we can agree to disagree.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

Next time you are sparring, put on the heavier gloves and then try to drop a Horizontal Forearm against a good strong uppercut, then write out how it went!!  

Todd


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 10, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Next time you are sparring, put on the heavier gloves and then try to drop a Horizontal Forearm against a good strong uppercut, then write out how it went!!
> 
> Todd



To maximize the effect Todd is looking for, be sure to lean forward and extend your chin.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> To maximize the effect Todd is looking for, be sure to lean forward and extend your chin.


Right, Cuz that will maximize the strenght of horizontal brace of your checking forearm.  
Todd


----------



## koga ha (Jan 10, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> To maximize the effect Todd is looking for, be sure to lean forward and extend your chin.


maybe i'll even open my mouth and see if i can get it knocked off the hinges too.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi KenpoDave,
> 
> So EPAK is change and Tracy is no change. ????
> 
> ...


Having worked with different systems of Kenpo, you can defiitly see "Key Motions" that show up in the different branchs.  How to find the original Kenpo.  First get all the different branchs in the same room, have them dissect each motion see if there is anything the same in thier branch.
The difficulties
!.) Getting everyone in the same room
2.) Kenpo has changed not only thru the various branch (AK, Tracy's, Goshin, Cerio's, Castro and Kara-ho)
3.) Kenpo changed as these "founders' were studing.  IMHO Chow was never stagnent.  Maybe that is why there is a difference in the between the different time layers
4.) and of course differences in how it was transmitted

Kenpo has changed, Kenpo will change.  GM say "Kenpo is the law of the fist in transition".
Todd


----------



## GAB (Jan 10, 2005)

Hi Todd, 

As you probably know. The instructors that I train with and hang around, will disagree with the straight line concept. It is an illusion all strikes and movement is/are in a, not so straight line.

Movement of feet can be considered straight but not the strikes etc. 

I have a tendacy to want to argue the point but alas, I am not going to, for it is really not worth the time.

Listen and think, keep the mouth shut and play their game...I think EPAK's universal pattern is pretty clear.

I was at a lesson yesterday and had some disagreements, it worked out but we did not come to an agreement just worked through the lesson without either one of us feeling it was a good one... 

That is what makes the world go around. Sometimes instructors need to listen to what the student wants and is paying for.

I believe private lessons are different than class lessons. The student is in charge of the lesson not the instructor.

What is your take on that???

Regards, Gary





			
				The Kai said:
			
		

> Having worked with different systems of Kenpo, you can defiitly see "Key Motions" that show up in the different branchs. How to find the original Kenpo. First get all the different branchs in the same room, have them dissect each motion see if there is anything the same in thier branch.
> The difficulties
> !.) Getting everyone in the same room
> 2.) Kenpo has changed not only thru the various branch (AK, Tracy's, Goshin, Cerio's, Castro and Kara-ho)
> ...


----------



## GAB (Jan 10, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Right, Cuz that will maximize the strenght of horizontal brace of your checking forearm.
> Todd


Hi,

Someone else see the wrong response or is it just me???

Todd I think you need to reread this and then???

Or not.

Regards, Gary


----------



## shane23ss (Jan 10, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Someone else see the wrong response or is it just me???
> 
> ...


I think it was a joke.


----------



## The Kai (Jan 10, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> I think it was a joke.


Maybe not if it has to be explained.
No, a pure straight line does'nt really exist in nature
Yes, private lessons are "Loa's" time, butr there need to be guidelines, and if want to work something 'extraordinary' shout out a heads up ahead of time!
Todd


----------



## koga ha (Jan 11, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Todd,
> 
> As you probably know. The instructors that I train with and hang around, will disagree with the straight line concept. It is an illusion all strikes and movement is/are in a, not so straight line.
> 
> ...


why is the student in charge of the lesson?


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 16, 2005)

I've been on Vacation the last week+ and was thus unable to respond.

I'm just wondering, Kembudo-Kai, how it is that you claim to have a 2cnd degree blackbelt, yet you seem to lack a white-belt in respect?

I said nothing offensive or demeaning, I was merely making my opinion voiced, and for some reason, your insecure little ego decided it was a good opportunity to insult me, so you could feel like a big man. Did it work, big man? You feel nice and puffed up now?

I have to say, as a martial artist I tend not to find it necessary to create further ego boosts. My strength, skill, and simple participation within the art has given me the self-respect and confidence I formerly lacked. I had assumed this was true of all real martial artists.


----------



## MJS (Jan 16, 2005)

Please keep the discussion at a friendly and respectful level!

If you're having a problem with someone on the forum, please use the features that are provided here.

1- Email

2- PM

3- Ignore

4- RTM

Thank you,

Mike


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 17, 2005)

RavenDarkfellow said:
			
		

> I've been on Vacation the last week+ and was thus unable to respond.
> 
> I'm just wondering, Kembudo-Kai, how it is that you claim to have a *2cnd degree blackbelt*, yet you seem to lack a *white-belt* in respect?
> 
> ...


I don't see rank claims anywhere; that 2nd Black thing is a MartialTalk placement relating to nothing more than the number of posts I've stuck on the board over time. I do disclose to serious inquiries: Based on your post and the absolutely huge piece of anime/RPG art you had on your sig line, I did not take you as a serious poster. I DID misinterpret your name and artwork as bing the work of  kid I used to know, who was a huge RPG fan and excellent artist who drew an RPG character named Raven for his hobby, and thought I might flush out a "howdy" with a tease. Apparently, you are not he, eh?

What you don't know about me could fill volumes. Let me know when your training teaches you patience and inquiry...to respond strategically, and not react emotionally.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 20, 2005)

I do apologize for the rank thing, as I misinterpretted the post-signifyer for the rank claim.  (As one of the profile options asks you to enter your rank, if you so choose.)  That's what I mistook it for.

As to me being whoever you "thought" I was, no I'm not.  It may please you to learn that I -am- an RPG/anime fan, however.  The picture I displayed I had hoped would be smaller and less intrusive-- seeing that it wasn't, though, I quickly changed it.

I apologize if I overreacted, but it was quite frustrating to find that after my serious, polite post, you had criticized me (even if it was joking) without even saying anything to do with the point of the message.  I am over it, however, and will appreciate it if we can just put it behind us.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jan 20, 2005)

RevenDarkFellow:

I have to tell you a story.  The final paper for my undergrad business management capstone class was a case study.  I mispelled the name of the case-study's company president, mispelled it the same way, 49 times.  The professor dinged me 1 point each time I mispelled it.  His comment was:  "if you were working for this guy, and you didn't get his name right, you'd get fired."

Anyway...in your profile...you mispelled "Tracy".


----------



## RavenDarkfellow (Jan 21, 2005)

Doh!  *rubs head*  Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## Kenpoist (Feb 15, 2005)

Well, with all this technical talk on the differences between these two systems, I wonder where I stand relative to my technique. I started with 1980's EPAK and now train with a TRA-CO based instructor who has evolved to teaching the standard EPAK cirricullum (with a few TRA-CO techs thrown in for good measure - darkness/grabbing pearls etc..). I think I have a good EPAK foundation from my previous years of training, but I have been out of the kenpo world for 15 years and do not know all of the changes that the system has undergone post SGM passing.


I have heard several negative comments on the TRA-CO system (bad blood between Tracy and Connors), but don't know anything more than that.


----------



## Kenpohermit (Feb 15, 2005)

I look forward to working out with a high ranking Tracy Instructor when I get around to it... The Tracy Kenpo School I visited before was not all that good and they have closed down so before I make any real comments about the Tracy's version of Kenpo I'd be better off expanding my point of view. I have herd a lot of good things about it.

But as far as the American Kenpo I study... I am tired of hearing it called "Commerical" Kenpo, I study the same system outlined in Infinite Insights 
Volume 5 that is the 24 technique system. Forms, Sets, extentions and all. 
American Kenpo has saved my life more then once. It is as effective as any other martial art. It's "practical Kenpo"... Again my point is I study American Kenpo and I work my **** off to improve my skill and knowledge and it works great & I am not even that good at it. I feel insulted that the system is reffered to as "Commerical Kenpo" As if every person who studies it is all about making money and opening mcdojo's. IT WORKS! IT IS EFFECTIVE for those who train hard at it. If you cant make it work thats your own problem mine works just fine... Why do people have this need knock a system just because they were to stupid, lazy or whatever to make it work?


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> Well, with all this technical talk on the differences between these two systems, I wonder where I stand relative to my technique. I started with 1980's EPAK and now train with a TRA-CO based instructor who has evolved to teaching the standard EPAK cirricullum (with a few TRA-CO techs thrown in for good measure - darkness/grabbing pearls etc..). I think I have a good EPAK foundation from my previous years of training, but I have been out of the kenpo world for 15 years and do not know all of the changes that the system has undergone post SGM passing.
> 
> 
> I have heard several negative comments on the TRA-CO system (bad blood between Tracy and Connors), but don't know anything more than that.


Kenpo is Kenpo, you're bad! news, that's all to it. They will all fear you now!


----------



## ikenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr. Kenpo said:
			
		

> Kenpo is Kenpo



Not true....


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Feb 15, 2005)

Kenpohermit said:
			
		

> I look forward to working out with a high ranking Tracy Instructor when I get around to it... The Tracy Kenpo School I visited before was not all that good and they have closed down so before I make any real comments about the Tracy's version of Kenpo I'd be better off expanding my point of view. I have herd a lot of good things about it.
> 
> But as far as the American Kenpo I study... I am tired of hearing it called "Commerical" Kenpo, I study the same system outlined in Infinite Insights
> Volume 5 that is the 24 technique system. Forms, Sets, extentions and all.
> American Kenpo has saved my life more then once. It is as effective as any other martial art. It's "practical Kenpo"... Again my point is I study American Kenpo and I work my **** off to improve my skill and knowledge and it works great & I am not even that good at it. I feel insulted that the system is reffered to as "Commerical Kenpo" As if every person who studies it is all about making money and opening mcdojo's. IT WORKS! IT IS EFFECTIVE for those who train hard at it. If you cant make it work thats your own problem mine works just fine... Why do people have this need knock a system just because they were to stupid, lazy or whatever to make it work?



Yes.  Of course it works.  Kenpo is a great set of tools.  But every toolset has its ideal applications and its limitations.  As you experience a wider variety of martial arts in a wider variety of situations, you will see that there are situations where other tools may fit better.


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Feb 15, 2005)

jbkenpo said:
			
		

> Not true....


Yes it is Dog!


----------

