# The Parker 32 Technique System



## MisterMike (Sep 12, 2003)

Hello,

I am new to the board so I wanted to respectfully send my greetings and start with my first question. I hope it brings good discussion. OK, here goes:

I studied Parker Kenpo under the 32 system, or a derivative of it, meaning we studied the 128 techniques and the 32 extensions. We also studied some techniques from the forms, such as the Rod techniques, so the total is a bit more than 128.

I have noticed many schools teach newer techniques that were not included in my studies and even extensions to techniques that did not originally have any, and I was wondering if anyone knows the origins of these newer techniques and extensions and why they were created.

As I understood the Parker Kenpo system, it is all inclusive with the original 128 techniques, and any additional techniques do not add new "motion", and may not have even been created by Mr. Parker.

Does anyone agree/disagree with what I have written?

Thank you,
Michael


----------



## MJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Page 3 of the Kenpo General forum has a discussion on this.:deadhorse 

Mike


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Page 3 of the Kenpo General forum has a discussion on this.:deadhorse
> 
> Mike *



Which thread?


----------



## jfarnsworth (Sep 12, 2003)

This one.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9341

and this one

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1667

here's one similar

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8597&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

and I think there were a couple or three in the technical forum.:asian:


----------



## MJS (Sep 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> *Which thread? *



Well, I think Jfarnsworth already posted them, but here they are again.  And there is actually 3 of them.

1- Are all these tech. needed?

2- 24 tech. vs. 16 tech.

3- Parker/Tracy 32/24/16 tech. curriculum.

Mike


----------



## pete (Sep 13, 2003)

i posted this about a week ago...

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=9961


----------



## Seig (Sep 13, 2003)

Folks,
Mike apparnetly is new the forum.  Yes, he asked a question most of us are a little weary with, BUT he did ask it in a respectfull way.  Please be a little friendlier on the first reply (ie Dead Horse icon).  If you think for some reason, something is not on the up and up, let me or Mr. Billings know.
Thanks,
Seig



PS, Welcome Mike and Pete


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 14, 2003)

Thanks for the threads to the other articles. I'll check them out. If they don't quite answer what I am looking for I'll be sure to continue on this thread 

But to summarize, I am not looking to hear the pro's / con's on whether to divide up the same techniques 16 or 24 per belt, but, teaching the original 32 technique system vs. the newer versions. I'm sure I'll find some insight...

Thank you.
Mike


----------



## cdhall (Oct 10, 2003)

FYI MisterMike.

Infinite Insights Book 5 outlines the 32 Technique curriculum as 154 Base Techniques and 96 Extensions if I'm not mistaken.

If you were studying something else, such as 128 Base Techniques and 32 Extensions, then part of your answer is probably addressed in this volume.

If not then at least you know that you did not have the "last" version of the 32 technique system.

I mean this respectfully as I am not familiar with the version of the system you describe.  I too will go through the other threads and look to see if this was addressed there, but I thought it was appropriate here in this context.
:asian:


----------



## Bill Lear (Oct 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *FYI MisterMike.
> 
> Infinite Insights Book 5 outlines the 32 Technique curriculum as 154 Base Techniques and 96 Extensions if I'm not mistaken.
> ...



*Ed Parker's Infinite Insights Into Kenpo has the 24 technique per belt curriculum outlined in it, not the 32 technique per belt level curriculum. Come on Doug, your making us 10th degree brown belts look like we graduated from the retard academy down the street. :shrug: 

The 24 technique curriculum was the latest version that he had published himself, although there are people that believe he was working toward the 16 technique per belt level curriculum toward the end of his life. :asian: *


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _*
> Infinite Insights Book 5 outlines the 32 Technique curriculum as 154 Base Techniques and 96 Extensions ......  ":if I'm not mistaken".
> *



Yes, you are mistaken!!!!

sigh:rofl:


----------



## cdhall (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *Ed Parker's Infinite Insights Into Kenpo has the 24 technique per belt curriculum outlined in it, not the 32 technique per belt level curriculum. Come on Doug, your making us 10th degree brown belts look like we graduated from the retard academy down the street. :shrug:
> *



Hey the good news is that I have not yet graduated from the retard academy.


And the other good news is that I'm glad I got this out of the way before I tested.


And the other good news is that I covered myself by saying "...if I'm not mistaken." I hated to post that without checking the books. Maybe I should go back into hybernation. 

But the best news is that I think I did get it right that Book 5 has 154 Base Techniques and 96 extensions I hope.  

So my hope is that I made the point that a version beyond 128 base techniques existed and was presented by Mr. Parker in Infinite Insights.

The other point which is probably well-addressed on the other threads I have not yet read, is that part of the appeal of American Kenpo is that Mr. Parker evolved the Concepts, Principles, Techniques and even the Name of the System throughout his life, so to wonder why the system was in flux at the time of his death is to question part of the appeal of the system.

I am not saying that Mike is questioning the validity of the system, I understand his question to be wondering how and/or why the system evolved as it did and I don't know if that is answerable.  The best place to get a clue would be from the manuals I think as they discuss the Theme, Purpose etc of each technique and if it makes sense it may provide insights into what came along behind it.

I don't have copies of the manuals. I will start a thread to see where they may be available.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 12, 2003)

Truce...
Kenpo2000 sells manuals detailing the techs. You'll laugh but I'm not sure off the top of my head which number we go with.
Sean


----------



## Bill Lear (Oct 12, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Touch'O'Death *
> 
> _Truce...
> Kenpo2000 sells manuals detailing the techs. You'll laugh but I'm not sure off the top of my head which number we go with.
> _



I think Kenpo 2000 uses the 16 technique format, *but I could be wrong.* :lol:


----------



## Elfan (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *I think Kenpo 2000 uses the 16 technique format, but I could be wrong. :lol: *



The Kenpo 2000 Manuals use the 24 technique format.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 12, 2003)

Thanks Elfan. I have a bunch of our old manuals stashed away but we've moved and who knows where I put them. As for the new K2000, I have yet to buy them. I probably won't for a while. There are plenty of vids I wish to buy first. I plan to train with a different group of K2000 guys in December(for good) and will probably need to know all this information. 
Sean


----------

