# Comparing Tracy and Parker techniques



## FLY (May 12, 2002)

:asian: 

The following quote is from an old post here by SuperDave. 



> By the way, do you know of a site that describes any of the Tracy self defense techniques? There are no Tracy schools near my home in Maryland, I am kind of curious to see some of the techniques in your system.



It reminded me of something that I've been curious about since I started studying Tracy's Kenpo, how do Parker's techs compare with Tracy's techs.  What are the similarities/differences between them and how many techs are actually the same (or close to) with just different names? (eg. 'Parting the Waves' and 'Gathering Clouds', if my memory serves)

I am hoping that some of the members of this forum with experience/knowledge of both systems can detail/breakdown some of these similar techniques.  Perhaps a detailed breakdown of one technique (one from each system that relate to each other) per week?

My reason for this request is that I have read a lot of posts regarding Parker's techs (some are very informative and interesting) and I would like to be able to compare
these Parker techs and insights with something I'm a LITTLE more familiar with and be able to relate them to some Tracy techs that I am learning.

My apologizes if this has already been covered here before.

:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2002)

Moved to Technical forum.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## thesensei (Nov 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by FLY _
> 
> How many techs are actually the same (or close to) with just different names? (eg. 'Parting the Waves' and 'Gathering Clouds', if my memory serves)
> 
> ...



On Kenponet, there is a good list of quite a few techniques that are very similar.  The link is http://kenponet.tripod.com/flame/articles/comparison.html.

I'm sure it's not a comprehensive list, but it's a starting point!!

Have fun,

jb


----------



## FLY (Nov 9, 2002)

Thank you for the link jb...that is what I was looking for.

FLY.

:asian:


----------



## Daishi (Nov 25, 2002)

There're a few distinct differences between the two

1) the names in Tracey from what I understand are completely random, whereas in Parker there is a reason behind each technique name.  Twig=arms, feathers = fingers, branch = legs etc....

2) strike locations vary quite a bit with Parker's being more "complete".  I put complete in parentheses because it's not really true in some senses.  The Tracey techniques that I have seen do not break any of the principles, but they are not as effective in terms of strike locations.  Many times the reverse motion is left out.    

Obviously this is just my biased opinion and I really didn't go into any depth at all, but it gives you an idea of some of the differences.


----------



## FLY (Nov 28, 2002)

thanks for the info Daishi.

However, I don't believe that the names in Tracey's are completely random.  In most of the tech's you can 'see' where the name comes from (eg. Praying Mantis, Arcing Blades etc) But I think I understand what you are saying.
Branch still equals leg in Tracey's, but there is only 1 tech all the way to 1st black that has branch in its name (sweeping branches) while there are many techs that deal with the legs.

From my limited understanding it seems that Parker's system has organized similar techs with similar names...I am assuming that this is to make it easier to learn and remember.



> Many times the reverse motion is left out.



What exactly do you mean by the 'reverse motion'?

FLY.

:asian:


----------



## Daishi (Nov 29, 2002)

Reverse motion is mostly just poor terminology on my part.  I'll try to explain it better.  I was told about an interesting story about how partker was watching a film of himself that he accidentally knocked into reverse and so how he left out a ton of moves based on the repositioning of his weapons.  So what he did was go back and start to fill in the gaps that were present making the technique more "complete".  

This just allowed you to visualize other openings that would be missed before....personally I think it just made the techniques more convoluted (some not all) but hey, since the techniques are never supposed to be used as they are taught in a fight exactly it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.


----------



## Elfan (Nov 29, 2002)

Reverse motion

The simplist example I can think of is this:

With your hand cocked at your hip or chambered or at thrust position or whatever you punch the guy in front of you then you return to that same position but you also strike a guy behind you with your elbow as your return.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Daishi (Nov 29, 2002)

That's what I wanted to say, but my brain is so fried from a major paper due for my class that I couldn't put it down into words.

Thanks for the help there elfan


----------



## FLY (Nov 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> 
> *Reverse motion
> 
> ...



Perfect sense...thankyou.  Although I've never heard it called any particular term, I am aware of it and do visualize it sometimes when I train 
(hard to think about sometimes when there is nobody there to hit though   )

FLY.

:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Nov 30, 2002)

Glad I could help.


----------



## WhiteTiger (Dec 2, 2002)

Far from being an expert on the subject, I can only convey what I have been told, by Mr. Tracy himself.  When Mr. Tracy began his training with Mr. Parker the techniques had no names, but were numbered by attack type e.g. (#5 Knife Defense).  Later when Al and Jim Tracy started thier own school, they came up with the names to make them eaiser to remember.  Mr. Parker adopted these names as he saw the benefit in them.  Later as Mr. Parker modified his original art to become American Kenpo, some names changed some stayed the same, and some techniques changed some stayed the same.  Today Tracy's schools teach the original kenpo system taught to them by Mr. Parker in the early 60's, and American Kenpo schools teach the modified system created by Mr. Parker.  

I have trained at both a Tracy's school and a "Modified" American Kenpo school.  In my opinion the question is not which is best, but which is best for you.

If you have further questions see Tracy's Karate Web site it has some great historical information.

http://www.tracyskarate.com/


----------



## arnisador (Dec 2, 2002)

This issue of numebred vs. named techniques occurs in Hapkido's separation from JuJutsu, though in a different way.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Dec 2, 2002)

Same side wrist grab #2. Always gets confused with #'s 1 and 3 not to mention Crossgrabs #'s 1-3. But that's CHKD for ya


----------



## Kenpomachine (Dec 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> 
> *This issue of numebred vs. named techniques occurs in Hapkido's separation from JuJutsu, though in a different way. *



I'm used to the first one, but when Planas explained to me the benefits of the named techniques I couldn't but help agreeing with what he said.

 I still haven't learnt all of the names, though. I have a bad memory and keep messing names, and sometimes the translation doesn't help...


----------



## cdhall (Dec 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Daishi _
> *... but hey, since the techniques are never supposed to be used as they are taught in a fight exactly.... *



Ahem,

I KNOW I'm going to regret this but I'll try to make my point respectfully and avoid a flame war.

As Mr. Speakman addressed in a recent seminar (I posted about it elsewhere), Mr. Parker designed Kenpo to be consistent so that we are not taught something in one technique that is contradicted in another technique or by another drill/set/form.

Mr. Speakman specifically referred to this when demonstrating how he has altered Knife Techniques to reflect the Knife Figthing training that he was getting from Mr. Parker before Mr. Parker died.

The point is that the techniques are all designed to give you muscle memory/habits/formulations that you can use in a either a Self-Defense situation or a fight.

I have used Sword of Destruction and parts of Sheilding Hammer in sparring situations recently and I have heard that Skip Hancock actually did Dance of Death in a tournament freestyle match.

So I disagree that we are taught stuff that we are not expected to use.  However, I do agree that you are not likely to ever complete a Self-Defense tecnique against one attacker. Mr. LaBounty has said that he has never finished a complete technique in a real situation in all his years of policework and experience (I think he says this somewhere on his website as well).

Personally I have used a Technique against 2 opponents in a multiple attacker situation where we were sparring and I started a technique on one guy and then changed my angle part-way through and finished the technique on a second opponent.

I'm not sure how you meant your original comment.  I am guess that you meant that you won't finish a technique in a real fight.  But I can assure you that you can use some or all of a technique in a real scenario and that after all is what techniques are for.  Techniques are meant to give you muscle-memory and skills to deploy for self-defense.  

The ideal phase emphasizes this aspect.  Later the What if and Formulation phases show you how you can use grafting and the equation equation formula to spontaneously generate a custom response to fit your particular need.  This all relates to why Mr. Parker hesitated to write the technques down in the first place.

I hope you don't see this as an attack or as being disrespectful.  I wanted to chime in and clarify the business about what good the techniques are to us.  Thank you. :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *Later the What if and Formulation phases show you how you can use grafting and the equation equation formula to spontaneously generate a custom response to fit your particular need. *



Maybe it's just because I don't know the language of Kenpo, but "use an equation/formula" and "spontaneous" seems a bit contradictory to me!


----------



## Rainman (Dec 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Maybe it's just because I don't know the language of Kenpo, but "use an equation/formula" and "spontaneous" seems a bit contradictory to me! *



No not really a contradiction-   The equation formula is a teaching tool.   Spontaneity is a fighting tool.


----------



## cdhall (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Maybe it's just because I don't know the language of Kenpo, but "use an equation/formula" and "spontaneous" seems a bit contradictory to me! *



Arnisador,

It is like Math.  The equation formula is a Kenpo Principle/Rule.

If you were given a mathematical equation to solve during a test or competition at the blackboard or whatever there are several ways that you might go about using Mathematical Principles/Rules to solve the equation.  But you would be working it out on the fly to come up with an answer.

Same thing.  The Equation Formula merely tells us that we can rearrange stuff (like legos) to come up with a design especially when we are under pressure. It is a reminder that it is more important for you to move well than to move in a certain prescribed manner (and as you might know, we have a LOT of "prescribed manners/techniques" in EPAK).

I hope I didn't just make that worse.  Tell me if it doesn't make sense, I was onto something with the math contest analogy....


----------



## RCastillo (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *Arnisador,
> 
> It is like Math.  The equation formula is a Kenpo Principle/Rule.
> ...



Sorry, I was terrible at math, but, I get it!


----------



## Rainman (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *Arnisador,
> 
> It is like Math.  The equation formula is a Kenpo Principle/Rule.
> ...



You don't use the equation formula when under pressure-  you are in a proactive/reactive state and what you have practiced/trained with is what you do.   The equation formula is a concept not a rule or principle.    Look at the offensive/freestyle techniques.    There is your mathmatical equations complete with numbers and letters.


----------



## cdhall (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *You don't use the equation formula when under pressure-  you are in a proactive/reactive state and what you have practiced/trained with is what you do.... *




I don't think we are saying different stuff.  I mean that the Equation Formula is a reminder to you that you can pick and choose what you need when you are called upon to need something.

Just like working math problems at the board.  Or picking and choosing targets in a fight.  Etc.  Right?  I may not be making sense, but I think we're on the same page.  Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## Rainman (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *I don't think we are saying different stuff.  I mean that the Equation Formula is a reminder to you that you can pick and choose what you need when you are called upon to need something.
> 
> Just like working math problems at the board.  Or picking and choosing targets in a fight.  Etc.  Right?  I may not be making sense, but I think we're on the same page.  Merry Christmas everyone. *



I know what you are saying and I disagree.  Maybe .  Targets are created.  For example:  Your initial strike opens another target.   It is how the body reacts to the strike (here is your zone cancellation) that tells you what your next best choice of target is.  These are the SD techniques.   Personally I believe the Equation F to be specific.  So if you prefix a technique you could quite possibley be adjusting  for range.  To plug and play without reason, and reasons are usually pretty specific, makes no sense.    You did say when you need something, so you could be saying something similar just less detailed.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well!


----------



## Kenpomachine (Dec 24, 2002)

The use of the equation with spontaneity is all what it is all about. Think about throwing stuff. There's an equation there, but you adjust the parameters to hit withouth thinking conciously in them (angle, force, speed and such).:teleport:


----------



## Rainman (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *The use of the equation with spontaneity is all what it is all about. Think about throwing stuff. There's an equation there, but you adjust the parameters to hit withouth thinking conciously in them (angle, force, speed and such).:teleport: *



Depends on the situation-  The equation formula is loose.  It says what not how or why.   Spontaneity is cummulative of all things learned not just the equation formula.  So no I would disagree with your statement that the equation formula with spontaneity are what "its" all about.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RCastillo _
> *Sorry, I was terrible at math, but, I get it! *



I teach math. and I also get it! OK, that makes sense. It's more about the rules of manipulating things--the algebra--than the equations themselves, I guess.


----------



## Rainman (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I teach math. and I also get it! OK, that makes sense. It's more about the rules of manipulating things--the algebra--than the equations themselves, I guess. *



Sure- it is loose in the aspect it only says what.  It is specific when what is defined.    The equation is not finite so a comparitive analysis with algebra may not be the best.   It is really just a basic teaching tool and one of many teaching aids.  It is not a rule of manipulation because it does not say how it just says that you can.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Depends on the situation- The equation formula is loose.  It says what not how or why.   Spontaneity is cummulative of all things learned not just the equation formula.  So no I would disagree with your statement that the equation formula with spontaneity are what "its" all about. *



You may not be aware of the formula you're using, but whether you like it or not, you're "living" physics formulas everyday.

But yes, common-sense is not in the equation formula and we use it too


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *You may not be aware of the formula you're using, but whether you like it or not, you're "living" physics formulas everyday.
> 
> But yes, common-sense is not in the equation formula and we use it too  *



the equation formula isn't a formula or a principle or a rule- it's permission. 

peace to all.

:asian:


----------



## cdhall (Dec 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I teach math. and I also get it! OK, that makes sense. It's more about the rules of manipulating things--the algebra--than the equations themselves, I guess. *



Praise God arnisador!  I am very pleased that this worked like I'd hoped.  At least once anyway.  I'm not going to further "tailor" another answer, I know there are discussions of the Equation Formula on this website and in Mr. Parker's books.  Like The Encyclopedia of Kenpo p48.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Dec 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jazkiljok _
> *the equation formula isn't a formula or a principle or a rule- it's permission.
> 
> peace to all.
> ...



Must have messed it up with something else. My fault.


----------

