# Kenpo differences - standardize or leave alone?



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 23, 2002)

Question,........

Since there are so many different versions of our System all over the world ...... i.e., Tracy's, Paul Mills, Speakman, Palanzo, Chap'el, Tatum, Kelly, LaBounty, White, Trejo, Planas, Conatser, Hancock, Wedlake, Hawkins, Hebler, and a ton of others....... 

Do you think we should attempt to "standardize" "any or some" of the material such as the Basics, Terminology, Self Defense Techniques, Forms, and Sets or just leave it alone as it is?  

:asian:


----------



## satans.barber (Jul 23, 2002)

What would we have to talk about if we all did everything the same? 

I say the differences are a good thing (in most cases), especially when coming up with new stuff as we have a broader base to work from.

Ian.


----------



## Sandor (Jul 23, 2002)

Tough question. 

I think that as close to 'standardization' as we can hope for would be the utilization of the II books and tech manuals. I dunno about some of the offshoots though as some split off well before the II books were published. For them, with out a lot of serious effort on thier behalf it won't happen. Seeing how lazy we all can be about that kind of thing I would say the idea is utopian. 

Best we could hope for would be that we all speak the same language for terms and 'code' words (ala the 'language which we speak'). At least that would facilitate communication between the various branches without a lot of hair pulling...

Being the survivor of a few flavors of the system myself(and switching the school a couple of times as well) I would say folks are better off just adding to what they know versus sweeping changes across student bases.

Peace,
Sandor


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 23, 2002)

Well GD I think you have a valid point here. However I kind of relate the "families" (goombah flair ) to military branches.

In the Army world wide an E-5 is a Sergeant, it's the same in the USMC. 

The Navy has chiefs and the USAF have Tech Sergeants.

My point is that they are all E-5's, their base pay is the same!

In kenpo you have the same thing. Whom ever you train with, that is if they are teaching the base system as outlined by Mr. Parker, we are generally all on the same page. Sure terminology might differ slightly. Kinda like the kitchen - Navy =galley Army=Chow Hall etc. But we all know what it means, especially if we are hungry! 

For those offshoots like the AKKI guys and the IKCA guys learning Kenpo with the association founders own signature flair, well that's like talking to the British Army...lol.

The point is, so long as we all understand the rules and principles and apply them to our base, I'd say we will be as standardized as we can be.:asian:


----------



## ikenpo (Jul 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *Question,........
> 
> ...



How about a "best practices" approach? Take the best from all to make one, of course that would require sharing and working together. 

The problem with all of this is that people don't necesarily want to work together. I have always heard Kenpo instructors say, "I don't really care what XXXX is doing, I'm only interested in my thing" (i.e. My Journey). 

The one thing I would agree on is "standardizing basics". I think a lot has been gained and lost from people doing private garage instruction. People don't do the thousands of inward, upward, downward blocks like we used to back in the day. Part of it might be that type of training is more conducive to large groups, but when you don't do it, you end up with weak movements.  I could be completely off base. 

I don't know that the techs could be standardized anymore. There are so many variations and derivatives, but we could have more intra-organizational camps to share information. 

It would be great to have a camp and spend all day for 2 or 3 days just looking at all the techs up to (your rank) and seeing the variations and logic behind them. After your level has passed there could be breakout seminars for each level to learn something else. 

Also get some 1st-3rd  degree blacks teaching at these events so we can see the continuing threads of the system.... most of them need the practice anyway (at least from what I've been to exposed).

Just think, if someone (like you) would put out a video on how to do basics, how to start class, different variations of drills, etc... they would make a killing. Many of us haven't been exposed to things that SGM Parker taught  different Seniors it would be great to have access to that. I guess that's what EPjr is doing.

But I know for many presentation is everything and they want to do a hollywood production instead of affordable basic study guides. 

Also if a person that does tours regularly (like Huk Planas) had a guy travel around with him and video tape his seminars and then offered those on the net...that person would also make a killing. 

just my thoughs, jb


----------



## tarabos (Jul 23, 2002)

how could it be done? who would be the ones to standardize it? i'm sure there's a lot of people who would like to put there two cents into the standardization pot. 

i think we have a good enough standard already. it's the principles and concepts left to us by Ed Parker, combined with the laws of physics and body dynamics.

just sounds a little too much like a pipe dream. if there is a standard that needs to be set, it's quality over quantity. don't give out belts like candy. do what you can to promote kenpo in your own way. stuff like that....


----------



## Seig (Jul 24, 2002)

I personally would love to see a standardization.  Unfortunately, there are too many egos out there for it to happen.  Too many people saying "My way is right, yours is junk."  If every one could agree on one dictionary, then maybe we could agree on one set of encyclopedias.  Yes, I know they are out there.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

hee hee
:rofl:


----------



## brianhunter (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *Question,........
> 
> ...



I think most of the material is the same from the guys who really know what they are doing, for instance Mr.C's and Tom Kellys curriculum are different but they are very, very, close. I think the best thing for Kenpo would be for everyone to agree to disagree and be happy we are all in it for the art reguardless of how we conduct it.


----------



## Kirk (Jul 24, 2002)

I think without standardizing, it won't take long before there are
drastic variations in the art.  It would put further distance 
between the brotherhood IMO.   Soon you wouldn't want to
attend a seminar from someone outside your lineage because
the differences will become so drastic!  I think there should be a 
long discussion over many adult beverages by those taught by
Mr Parker.  And they should accept the fact that things were 
taught to them each in a different way, and rejoice in it.  These
guys are the current fathers of our system, and given the 
differences, most seniors will say "I disagree" with so-and-so,
yet none say "so-and-so"is a dumbass" (for the most part).  

What I'm getting at is the seniors right now, are all VERY 
knowledgeable in martial arts.  I think it is within all of their
abilities to 1) set differences aside 2) set egos aside and 3) 
agree on a LOT of things regarding the basics of our common
system.  Most will say I'm in a pipe dream, but I still think that
it IS possible.  What has to be found is the circumstances that
will MAKE IT possible.  Kenpo will survive longer with a united
front, and a strong brotherhood can exist!  


To  *steal (and alter)* from Dr. Martin Luther King:

Let kenpo ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let kenpo 
ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let kenpo 
ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let kenpo ring 
from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let 
kenpo ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let kenpo ring from 
Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let kenpo ring from every hill 
and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let 
kenpo ring.

When we let kenpo ring, when we let it ring from every village 
and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able 
to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and 
white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be 
able to join hands in kenpo and sing, "Free at last! free at last! 
thank God Almighty, free at last!"

:soapbox:


Please note that I in no way mean to "make fun" of Dr King's 
message in his famous speech.  The message has a truth to it
that hopefully we as a society will one day accomplish.  To read 
the original words of Dr King's speech in it's entirety, please click here.
Read more about Dr Martin Luther King in your local library.


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

From what I've seen, the basics in most schools are the same.

 I think the forms issues are a product of studios in locations where Senior instructors are hard to come by or the studios' head instructor just can't afford to travel to get the info or they are bound and (blinded) by their association.

Sets...well sets are up to the instructors if they want to teach them or not. Most will agree that they are just exercise to work certain aspects of the art "Appendices of Motion". 

SO to have a "Standardization Board" might get to be a little hairy. Who would be on it? The most senior Parker black belts? 

Okay..so we'll have Sullivan, Hebler, LaBounty, White, who else?

If we have them you'll have the argument that Hebler doesn't teach the "new" stuff and that Sullivan "doesn't follow the web of knowledge as it is written".  Then you will have those that say "I was there training with Mr. Parker just before he died...I have the  _newest_  material changes."

Someone posted it before about egos. To many might get in the way of a successful "Standardization Board".

I look at it this way, each of the seniors have something to offer. If your basics are strong the rest is cake. Take it all in learn as much as you can. :asian:


----------



## fanged_seamus (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *Question,........
> 
> ...



If there were a way to standardize the basics and terminology, I'd be all for it.  In general, terminology seems pretty uniform (with a few exceptions like "Reverse Marriage of Gravity"), but I haven't been exposed to much outside of my organization.  The basics, as the building blocks and foundation of all kenpo, should also be standard, IMO.

However, since techniques, forms, and sets are more "personal" displays of motion, I don't like the idea of standardizing there.  If you want to evaluate how the techniques or forms of two organizations compare, look to the fundamentals -- strong stances, clean motion, good basics.

Diversity can be good, so long as everyone holds the same fundamental building blocks.

Tad


----------



## Rob_Broad (Jul 24, 2002)

A little over a year ago I jokingly created an organization which I quickly dismantled called the Kenpo Wh****( rhymes with doors).  It wasn't meant to be derogatory to anyone. I set it up for people like myself who are tired of the egos and and the BS that seems to go hand in hand with most associations.  It was set up for people like myself who attend seminars to see instructors we want to learn from regardless of their affiliation, and to learn the material we want to learn.   I was proud of the fact that I did not follow any organizations mandate blindly, I had done that in the past and didn't even get a kiss goodnight.

A standardization committee or board would have to be able to put all politics a side and realy think about what would be best for the entire kenpo community, not their agenda.  I would love to see the knowledge free flowing, but unless people learn to check their egos at the door it will never happen.


----------



## headkick (Jul 24, 2002)

Probably to some degree, yes.  Will it be?  Probably not.  I think one good thing is people from different organizations to get together on a regular basis to share ideas.  If nothing else, you can see what you don't like.  I think Mr. Speakman tries to do that with his camps.  You were in Vegas this year, weren't you Mr. C?  What was that punchline again?


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

Egos, egos everywhere, we need a psychiatric shrink...:rofl: 
(To the tune of water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink...)


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *From what I've seen, the basics in most schools are the same.
> 
> ...



I have been around the block a few times so to speak, and know for a fact that there are definate differences in the way that *ALL* of the Senior Instructors I have trained with do the forms. Some call them signature moves, never the less, the differences *ARE* there, and they all claim to be the right or best way. 

Hasta,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

> Some call them signature moves, never the less, the differences ARE there, and they all claim to be the right or best way.



I have seen some do that, however the basic form is the same. They follow the pattern, *"most"* of the methods of execution are right on. Yes, they may add, like Skip Hancock adds shuffles with Short Form #1.  The explanations of how they came to that conclusion may be different, but for the most part they are asthetically the same.

Most of the time when you ask kenpo practitioners how come they do the form that way, they will say..."that's the way my instructor learned it." No explanations other than that. Like no one bothered to question the instructor?!? Or "I know how it goes, but I don't know what its called." What's up with that?!?

Anyway that's allot of what we hear in the East... Unlike you Cali folks...  It is getting better though. Between Huk, Frank, Lee, and Paul Mills, things are getting better  ...

Oh yeah Dennis too...:rofl:


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

Paul Mills isn't working toward standardization with people outside of his association. He is infact changing quite a bit from everything I've seen.

Hasta,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

You're right!

He IS standardizing his own though...i.e. AKKI...


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *You're right!
> 
> He IS standardizing his own though...i.e. AKKI... *



I thought we were writing about standardization beyond the borders of association, where did we loose each other?

Sincerely,
Crazy Billy
United Kenpo Systems :shrug:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

I shouldn't have lumped Mills in with the group I metioned...


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *I shouldn't have lumped Mills in with the group I metioned... *



No problem dude.


----------



## matthewgreenland (Jul 24, 2002)

I believe that the "CORE" elements of EPAK are the same.  Some instructors and organizations differ in opinion, but the core is constant.  I wish that ego wasn't an issue.  And, I know that diversity has its pros and cons.  Maybe their wouldn't be this sense of "I'm doing it right and you're doing it wrong," if people would set their feelings aside.  I think that the above quote is embedded in so many people's minds that they close down mentally if they are not hearing an affirmation to what they were taught.  In a sense, this in analagous to religion and spirituality.  So many feel that if what they hear differs from "THEIR" approach, it must be wrong.  Could it be that none are wrong.  It is simply yet another perspective?  In my heart, I feel this is the case, at least for me.


----------



## Kirk (Jul 24, 2002)

Ed Parker Jr at a seminar said (in so many words) that most
went to him after getting their b.b. through someone else ...
they'd say to SGM Parker 'how do you do Thundering Hammers?'.
He'd reply with, "how do YOU do Thundering Hammers?" because
everyone was different.  And then he'd tell them how BEST to do
it given how they moved, their body style, their own arrogance,
and what not being a factor.  Then they'd all go away thinking
that it was the ONLY way that tech/set/form should be done,
when what it actually was, was customized.  That being the case,
it's possible that the CORE might vary from instructor to instructor.
And if THIS is the case, then it won't be too long before the 
variants in the core are even wider.


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

You took the words right outta my mouth. Seriously, I was going to post a response along those same lines.

Take Care,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 24, 2002)

Honestly, I do not believe that it will ever happen.  Not anytime soon, anyway.  Been too many years of too many differences, and too much slam dunking on each other between the various schools of thought.

Basics are all pretty much basics, and that is as it should be.  There are some systems of Kenpo, however, that have very different basics, due primarily, to the philosophy of the founder of the system.  Even at that, the differences can not be discounted or diminuated.  They are there and they work.

The uniformity that we are thinking of does not seem to rear its head in other aspects of the martial arts.  Look, for instance, at the differences in the various schools of Shorin-Ryu, Phillipine Martial Arts, and the various schools of "Kung fu".  The truths of all of these variants are still true.

It will still be interesting to see what it all shakes out like in 5 or 6 more generations.

Dan :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> They are bound and (blinded) by their association.
> *



Or by some know it all instructor that thinks he is the only one that knows all the material and that no one else does.

*



			Sets...well sets are up to the instructors if they want to teach them or not. Most will agree that they are just exercise to work certain aspects of the art "Appendices of Motion".
		
Click to expand...

*
Forms "AND" Sets are expressions of basic skills

*



			SO to have a "Standardization Board" Who would be on it? The most senior Parker black belts?   Okay..so we'll have Sullivan, Hebler, LaBounty, White, who else?
		
Click to expand...

*
Why such a short list.......?  What about Trejo, Huk, Tatum, Pick, Hancock, Mills, Chapel, Palanzo, or Tom Kelly?

*



			If we have them you'll have the argument that Hebler doesn't teach the "new" stuff and that Sullivan "doesn't follow the web of knowledge as it is written".  Then you will have those that say "I was there training with Mr. Parker just before he died...I have the  newest  material changes."  Someone posted it before about egos. To many might get in the way of a successful  "Standardization Board".
		
Click to expand...

*
Well, that is the trick right..... getting these guys together and shake up the bag and see what shakes out........ isn't it.

*



			I look at it this way, each of the seniors have something to offer. If your basics are strong the rest is cake. Take it all in learn as much as you can.
		
Click to expand...

*
I agree with this statement totally!

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis.....tsk, tsk, tsk

No cheap shots now....Besides...who might you be referring to?



> Or by some know it all instructor that thinks he is the only one that knows all the material and that no one else does.






> Why such a short list.......? What about Trejo, Huk, Tatum, Pick, Hancock, Mills, Chapel, Palanzo, or Tom Kelly?



DO you expext me to list all of the seniors. I would expect that more people would be in order, more than what I listed. Don't be so literal.



> Well, that is the trick right..... getting these guys together and shake up the bag and see what shakes out........ isn't it.



Do you honestly think Chuck or Dave would give up what they have with the IKCA or the OKKA to be on a standardization board?



> I agree with this statement totally!



Thanks


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by headkick _*
> You were in Vegas this year, weren't you Mr. C?  What was that punchline again?
> *



Ohhhhhhh shuddup you mouth........ 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Dennis, Dennis, Dennis.....tsk, tsk, tsk   No cheap shots now.... Besides... who might you be referring to?
> *



I take No cheap shots......... but.... Well, I can think of a few......

*



			Do you honestly think Chuck or Dave would give up what they have with the IKCA or the OKKA to be on a standardization board?
		
Click to expand...

*
I don't recall saying that "anyone" had to "give up" anything of what they are currently a part of to be on a standardization board.  

After conversations with several including Mr. Hebler, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Mills, and several others......... I have received nothing but interest.   The formation of this does not require anyone to leave their own organizations but rather to work together as individual heads of organizations toward common  ground - American Kenpo.   Just - if - how - why - when - etc are still being explored at this time....... but it is not a dead issue as of yet.   Many of these men are not as egotistical as some think.  But they all are Eagles in their own right......... and Eagles do not flock!  But they can band together to protect a common habitat each with his own territory.

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

> I take No cheap shots......... but.... Well, I can think of a few......



ANyone I know????



> I don't recall saying that "anyone" had to "give up" anything of what they are currently a part of to be on a standardization board.



Easy there big guy....





> Many of these men are not as egotistical as some think.



Who say they were egotistical? Who are the several others???


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7_*
> quote: I take No cheap shots......... but.... Well, I can think of a few......
> *





> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> ANyone I know????
> *



Yes, all of them.............. lol




> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7_*
> quote: I don't recall saying that "anyone" had to "give up" anything of what they are currently a part of to be on a standardization board.
> *


 



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Easy there big guy....
> *



I'm not upset.......... just stating fact.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> Who say they were egotistical?
> *


 

Several insinuations throughout several posts  as to parking the egos at the door or no one will get along.............



> *
> Who are the several others???
> *



to quote you ........ "DO you expect me to list all of the seniors. I would expect that more people would be in order, more than what I listed. Don't be so literal."

Several could be added.


 

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

Way to circumvent GD...



> to quote you ........ "DO you expect me to list all of the seniors. I would expect that more people would be in order, more than what I listed. Don't be so literal."





> quote: Originally posted by kenpo3631...
> Anyone I know????
> 
> Yes, all of them.............. lol


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 25, 2002)

like that dont you !

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

Actually I have no clue of who you are talking about...

:asian:


----------



## headkick (Jul 25, 2002)

Probably to some degree, yes.  Will it be?  Probably not.  I think one good thing is people from different organizations to get together on a regular basis to share ideas.  If nothing else, you can see what you don't like.  I think Mr. Speakman tries to do that with his camps.  You were in Vegas this year, weren't you Mr. C?  What was that punchline again?


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

I've seen your post before.....<Darth Vader voice>:jediduel: 

AND....?:shrug:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 25, 2002)

My worry is:
"When does it stop being American Kenpo"

We tend to be all inclusive in an umbrella of Kenpo, and tolerate a lot of deviation when it comes to techniques, forms, sets, and some basics. When and who would decide when an organization strays too far afield (if in fact there is any such thing.)  Think about James Ibrao's Kenpo as vs. Dennis Conatser's.  Where the Priciples, Concepts, and Theories as developed by Mr. Parker are consciously applied, is that Kenpo?  How about those arts that use them, but cannot articulate why they do what they do.  Does it take standardization of techniques & forms ... or is it principles and concepts?  

Very shakey ground here to me.  I would love to see a cohesive Kenpo group with multiple associations doing essentially a similar system or art, I am just not sure it is possible at this point.  Is Ron Chapel's SL-4 able to be reconciled with Paul Mills AKKI techniques?  I don't know.  In a perfect world maybe we could have perfect Kenpo.  We know the umbrella of the Senior Counsel was not able to cover the members, or those left out intentionally?  It was the right idea ... but you have to have active, willing, proactive participation, a committment to the goals, and a shared desire to drive toward the same end - and to "hold the line" rather than make exceptions due to seniority or "we don't know that" or numerous other complications all organizations have to deal with. 

A little Organizational Psychology should tell you how difficult this noble goal would be.  Standardization of at least a minimal level would ensure that no matter where you went, the Kenpo you know would be available.  A noble dream, one worth fighting for, but do not discount the hurdles inherent in trying to resolve this.  Everyone wants it probably, but who is willing to compromise the way they teach their art?  It takes a big man/woman to subjugate his/her teaching to a "standard" that he/she may not agree with completly.  Once again, where would we draw the line? 

Whew!!  Way too long a post.  I have reason to wish it were easier. I do miss the days when Mr. Parker was the driving influence or source of the Kenpo out there.  Even if it had changed ie. Tracy's or Mr. Mills, you knew where it came from.

-Michael
UKS-Texas


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 25, 2002)

I am about to get in trouble here.  Once again, American Kenpo is not the only viable flavor of Kenpo.  As stated there are a number of different styles of Kenpo that would, at least in my paradigm, not mesh into a viable admixture that could reasonably be called American Kenpo.  

I think that things went too long without any attempts to achieve a meeting of the minds, and I'm really not sure that it could ever really happen or have happened the way some folks are envisioning it.  

Now, I suspect that the only way there will ever, truly, be a unified Kenpo is if all the various "sub-cultures" die out due to not being valid, useful, or simply lack of interest on the part of new students.  On the other hand, that is the way it has always been.  The less vigorous or useful arts are now gone or are in the process of dying.  Interestingly, now-a-days, we allow for 200 seperate types of Kung fu.  In the late 60s and early 70s, there were about 2000 styles on Mainland China.  

I suspect that due to amalgamation or due to the above listed reasonings, we are now down to 200, and I suspect that over the ensuing generations, such will happen in Kenpo.  Since I began study of Kenpo in '71, and most particularly in the past 10 to 15 years, there have been astronomical advances in Kenpo.  It continues to suffer growing pains, but it is growing and changing daily.  And that is a good thing.   

dan


----------



## Zeke (Jul 25, 2002)

Yep, have to agree with you on that one, change is a good thing.  As my first instructor used to say ;"As long you are changing you're alive. When you stop you might as well be dead" I guess he had a point somewhere 
Now would it be nice if we all did the same thing? Yes indeed! Would it be just as fun? No not at all 
Take care
Zeke


----------



## Zeke (Jul 25, 2002)

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 26, 2002)

Personally, I don't think there will be a "unified" type of committee. You know what's funny....I think Mr. Parker wanted it that way. I say this because he taught everyone around the world slightly different. Just look at Joe Palanzo compared to a Tom Kelly or Larry Tatum. Huk Planas to Doreen Cogliandro, or Diane Tanaka. They each have something to offer, and each is slightly different. 

I think that this was done so that Mr. Parker could tell what part of the country or globe you came from. I oddly enough feel that he knew this would happen and for that in some peculiar way these differences would inevidibaly draw each of them closer together... :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> I oddly enough feel that Mr. Parker knew that in some peculiar way these differences between individuals would inevidibaly draw each of them closer together.
> *



In some cases it certainly has!

:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *Question,........
> 
> ...



Standardize or leave alone.  Leave alone or standardize.   Neither, find who you like and hang with them... and who makes you better and hang with them!

:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



100% true, I like it.
Jason Farnsworth


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 27, 2002)

The great voice form the Northwest...... always comes thru in the end!!

:asian:


----------



## donald (May 7, 2005)

I know I weigh in wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy late, but here is my 2 cents. Did'nt Mr.Parker say to leave the forms alone? I think that the forms/sets, and techniques should be standardized. If your not teaching the system that Mr.Parker Sr., laid out. You should'nt use his name. You could call it a system, based on the Epak system. The way it stands now is verrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy confusing. I believe some high ranking seniors have gone to just calling it kenpo. Even though they are mainly teaching Epak material. They like Mr.P. Sr., have opted to make it thier own. Always giving him his props when explaining thier method. Much like he did, with regard to Mr.Chow. 
By GOD'S Grace,
Donald 1st John 1:9 :asian:


----------



## Simon Curran (May 7, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> I know I weigh in wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy late, but here is my 2 cents. Did'nt Mr.Parker say to leave the forms alone? I think that the forms/sets, and techniques should be standardized. If your not teaching the system that Mr.Parker Sr., laid out. You should'nt use his name. You could call it a system, based on the Epak system. The way it stands now is verrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy confusing. I believe some high ranking seniors have gone to just calling it kenpo. Even though they are mainly teaching Epak material. They like Mr.P. Sr., have opted to make it thier own. Always giving him his props when explaining thier method. Much like he did, with regard to Mr.Chow.
> By GOD'S Grace,
> Donald 1st John 1:9 :asian:


 Yeah I arrived late to the party as well, but I agree as regards the forms and sets, it would be nice to be able to work with whomever and at least the forms and sets would be uniform.
 As regards Kenpo in general though, I think that we, as students, have the responsibilty to seek out the people with whom we wish to work as and when possible, and thus make our own interpretation of Kenpo based upon our own needs/desires for our Journey.


----------



## JenniM (May 10, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> As regards Kenpo in general though, I think that we, as students, have the responsibilty to seek out the people with whom we wish to work as and when possible, and thus make our own interpretation of Kenpo based upon our own needs/desires for our Journey.


Absolutely!!  After all there is "effective", "more effective" and "MOST effective" especially with regard to basics and techniques.   Having said that you need a standardized strong base from which to build upon as you continue your growth and kenpo journey.  However, having said this I think that as long as you have individual instructors and students you will always have individual interpretation of what would be considered "Standardized"  - just go along to a Kenpo competition where there are many different Kenpo organisations present and you will see the same form/set performed differently every time, albeit the differences may be very small  - I think it is impossible for human beings to perform the same motion exactly the same - this is what makes us unique and interesting - so I think the word here is "Interpretation" of what SGM Parker originally taught, how his Instructors interpreted this and how they then passed this on to their students within their respective organisations - Kenpo is always evolving I believe - certainly for myself now beginning to work on SL4 concepts under the Martial Science University and Dr Chapel/Mr Mills  I feel closer to the source, SGM Parker than ever before but standardized hmmmmmm.... Well that's my two pennies worth!!


----------



## Simon Curran (May 11, 2005)

JenniM said:
			
		

> Absolutely!! After all there is "effective", "more effective" and "MOST effective" especially with regard to basics and techniques. Having said that you need a standardized strong base from which to build upon as you continue your growth and kenpo journey. However, having said this I think that as long as you have individual instructors and students you will always have individual interpretation of what would be considered "Standardized" - just go along to a Kenpo competition where there are many different Kenpo organisations present and you will see the same form/set performed differently every time, albeit the differences may be very small - I think it is impossible for human beings to perform the same motion exactly the same - this is what makes us unique and interesting - so I think the word here is "Interpretation" of what SGM Parker originally taught, how his Instructors interpreted this and how they then passed this on to their students within their respective organisations - Kenpo is always evolving I believe - certainly for myself now beginning to work on SL4 concepts under the Martial Science University and Dr Chapel/Mr Mills I feel closer to the source, SGM Parker than ever before but standardized hmmmmmm.... Well that's my two pennies worth!!


That's pretty much what I meant to say too ma'am, I just feel as regards forms and sets, that we should try to replicate (as close as we can) what it was Mr Parker originally wanted them to be, I'm pretty sure that the great man had a rhyme and reason as to why they were to be performed in a specific manner, allbeit misunderstood by the most of us...


----------



## JenniM (May 11, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> That's pretty much what I meant to say too ma'am, I just feel as regards forms and sets, that we should try to replicate (as close as we can) what it was Mr Parker originally wanted them to be, I'm pretty sure that the great man had a rhyme and reason as to why they were to be performed in a specific manner, allbeit misunderstood by the most of us...


Agreed!


----------



## kenposikh (May 11, 2005)

Coming from the IT world as I do standardisation is a wonderful thing but as is found in the IT world the problem is there are always groups or organisations who want something a little more and slightly different to the standard. People are people and they will always conflict with each other.

KIRCODUMANTOPY


----------



## Doc (May 12, 2005)

Kirk said:
			
		

> Ed Parker Jr at a seminar said (in so many words) that most
> went to him after getting their b.b. through someone else ...
> they'd say to SGM Parker 'how do you do Thundering Hammers?'.
> He'd reply with, "how do YOU do Thundering Hammers?" because
> ...


Edmund's understanding is quite correct and on the money, and remember he was born into the "motion era" of his Fathers vast work so his perspective is not tainted by previous material. His statements support what I have always said about motion-based kenpo. Parker not only didn't teach "basics," he never ever standardized techniques, and instead put forth "ideas" through his ground breaking "manuals." 

 Everyone seems to agree that the basics should be the same. However, because Mr. Parker never taught consistent basics to these people, standardization beyond conceptual ideas he ultimately published in his Infinite Insights and Sophisticated Basics Series, are not present in the motion based approach by HIS DESIGN. Most of his black belts did come from other interpretations and styles so they brought their personal understanding of basics with them, as the foundation for their teaching.

 Further, more, even those that were a part of Kenpo before the commercial motion system was introduced, were also subject to the same problem because Parker himself was in transition, and his own understanding of "basics" was in a state of flux. 

 The basics he brought to the mainland and taught when he was in college as a brown belt, had changed when he came back as a black belt after leaving military service. Then after a little over a year as a black belt in Pasadena, they changed again when he switched examination and study to the very strict Chinese Arts. 

 Then, in the beginning of his transition to his personal evolving "American-Kenpo," his basics began to change as well. A look at the "Basics Booklet" Parker published early on had "Short Form One," and Parker demonstrated "basic blocks" himself. Later on, he looked at his own execution in that book and said, "Horrible." and never ever demonstrated basics again.

 Parker continued to grow until he passed away and his understanding of correct body mechanics changed dramatically over time. However, Parker NEVER standardized basics with any GROUP of his black belts from any era, and specifically not ever with motion-kenpo. Motion-Kenpo philosophically does not allow for standardized basic application. To do so would be contrary to the basic design of the material. What Parker did attempt to do before he passed with the few he was teaching in Motion-Kenpo, was standardize the UNDERSTANDING of TECHNIQUES, but never the specific execution. The over-riding theme of Motion-Kenpo has, and has ALWAYS been; "Make it work for you." 

 Parker's commercial edict of "Make the art fit you, not you fit the art." completely dominates his commercial product. While this is actually correct of all arts and their interpretation at some point in time, Parker moved this idea from later in your years of training to the beginning of your training to make it commercially viable. Brilliant and it worked. Nevertheless, everyone has to understand, as long as your "basics" are based on subjective and personal preferences of "motion" and aesthetics, they will continue to be impossible to standardize.

 To make that leap, (which more and more now seem willing to do), you must leave subjective applications behind and move to the anatomical methodology, which is dictated by the science of biomechanics. This is the method used by pro sports where the MOST effective execution dominates. Only then will standardization take place, because it is not a person who decides, but the science itself, and that can be physically challenged to prove or disprove efficacy like any other true scientific model. However, even under this methodology instructors are free to interpret techniques to their own desire and "shape" their training curriculum. The difference is, you still have to stay within most effective biomechanical function. After all, how could you justify doing something one way, when there is a more physically effective way? The other thing is, you will have to teach all students the same material in the beginning and the "shaping" and "tailoring" of technique for personal preferences will come much later in a students journey.

 So yes, everyone is "different" in their understanding of "basics" but no one is right or wrong within the context of their own teaching, beyond what works for their students. "Right or wrong" however can and will be determined when you switch to a true science based model. The question is, if you want to make the switch, can you handle the idea of simply being "wrong" no matter how many stripes you have.  If not, keep doing what you're doing, and have fun doing it.  However, if you can handle it, there is a vast new world of material out there that I think a lot of you have been seeking. Some without egos, have set their stripes aside, and have already started. I had to do the same.


----------



## Doc (May 12, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Is Ron Chapel's SL-4 able to be reconciled with Paul Mills AKKI techniques?  I don't know. -Michael
> UKS-Texas


I know your question was hypothetical, but I'll answer it..... 

Paul teaches what he does based on personal preferences and the understanding he has for, and his talent in his art. I too am driven by my teachings and preferences as well, but the base knowledge is driven by the science of biomechnics and their applications. The science is the authority, not me. If the science says its wrong, I must change. If the science gives me a choice between one way or another, then and only then do I get to choose. I also get to choose how I convey that information, and what area I would like to focus on. This is the old Chinese way, and that is what Parker taught me to do. Jimmy Woo once said, "Its all the same, (the foundation) the only difference is what you choose to focus on." Once physical foundations are learned, there is plenty of room for personal "flavor." I suspect some of my students will shape what they teach when I'm gone to what they prefer, but as long as it is biomechnically correct, they will be doing what I taught them and for that they will never ever be wrong.


----------



## Michael Billings (May 12, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I know your question was hypothetical, but I'll answer it.....
> 
> Paul teaches what he does based on personal preferences and the understanding he has for, and his talent in his art. I too am driven by my teachings and preferences as well, but the base knowledge is driven by the science of biomechnics and their applications. The science is the authority, not me. If the science says its wrong, I must change. If the science gives me a choice between one way or another, then and only then do I get to choose. I also get to choose how I convey that information, and what area I would like to focus on. This is the old Chinese way, and that is what Parker taught me to do. Jimmy Woo once said, "Its all the same, (the foundation) the only difference is what you choose to focus on." Once physical foundations are learned, there is plenty of room for personal "flavor." I suspect some of my students will shape what they teach when I'm gone to what they prefer, but as long as it is biomechnically correct, they will be doing what I taught them and for that they will never ever be wrong.


 Respectfully, I wrote that a lifetime ago ... The date was 07-25-2002, 05:04 PM and an Association ago also.  I do appreciate the reply, but had to re-read the thread.  My question was rhetorical, whereas your answer is specific and execution-based.  The point being that it was not merely the lack of standardization, but as you note, "when" the black belts learned their material, and how can they possibly reconcile this?

 None-thee-less I appreciate the answer as always.

 Keepin' it Kenpo,
 -Michael


----------



## dubljay (May 13, 2005)

I think the differences should be left alone to see where they go.  Look at the variety of places Kenpo has come to.  Just by looking at the seniors on this board each have their little niche, an area of expertise that help make all of us just a bit better kenpo.

 Just my humble opinion 

 -Josh


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 13, 2005)

Well, if everyone all wore levis, grey shirts and drove blue cars life would be boring wouldn't it.  So the spice of life is in our ability of choice and preference.  If you get tired of Mexican food then try Chinese, if you don't know what you are eating, then watch tv........


----------



## Simon Curran (May 13, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Well, if everyone all wore levis, grey shirts and drove blue cars life would be boring wouldn't it. So the spice of life is in our ability of choice and preference. If you get tired of Mexican food then try Chinese, if you don't know what you are eating, then watch tv........


Ouch, my head, it's too early in the morning for philosophy and metaphors...


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 13, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Ouch, my head, it's too early in the morning for philosophy and metaphors...


 That was a little to deep was it?


 Well, you know what I always say........

 You can lead a horse to water....
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
_*but you can't smear cake on his lips!!

:ultracool
*_


----------



## MA-Caver (May 13, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> I personally would love to see a standardization.  Unfortunately, there are too many egos out there for it to happen.  Too many people saying "My way is right, yours is junk."  If every one could agree on one dictionary, then maybe we could agree on one set of encyclopedias.  Yes, I know they are out there.


Exactly what I was thinking. I mean by *who's* standards are you going to ...umm, standardize Kenpo? 
Just like with JKD which way is the right way. Or the other arts? 
There are dozens of people coming up with their own ways of doing things. 

IMO... if it works use it. It doesn't really matter who's right or wrong as long as the method is *effective* in ending the fight.


----------



## Simon Curran (May 13, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Exactly what I was thinking. I mean by *who's* standards are you going to ...umm, standardize Kenpo?
> Just like with JKD which way is the right way. Or the other arts?
> There are dozens of people coming up with their own ways of doing things.
> 
> IMO... if it works use it. It doesn't really matter who's right or wrong as long as the method is *effective* in ending the fight.


Personally I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think it would be great for us poor minions if we could get all of the seniors together, and have _them_ set the standards, based upon discussion, and experimentation, but like I say, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 13, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Exactly what I was thinking. I mean by *who's* standards  are you going to ...umm, standardize Kenpo?
> Just like with JKD which way is  the right way. Or the other arts?
> There are dozens of people coming up with  their own ways of doing things.
> 
> IMO... if it works use it. It doesn't  really matter who's right or wrong as long as the method is *effective* in  ending the fight.


 Well, you need to analyze what, why and how it  is that you do.  Kenpo is the study of motion.  (Yes even for the good ole Doc)   but it all depends on exactly _*what*_, _*why*_, and  _*how*_ you _"do the motion"_ that you are involved in.  It has  to be fundamentally sound and well rooted.  There *ARE* better ways in  doing some things that we do, depending upon the goal and intent.  

 Yes  we all study Kenpo the _(((motion)))_ Art........ but many do it in different ways....  Many do not realize that there are *3* parts to this (as Mr. Parker used to  say to me).... there is ... 
_*Motion*_,.......  
_*Emotion*_, ...... and 
_*Commotion*_!!  lol   

 I know of several that come to mind and fall into the last category!

 :asian:


----------



## Mark Weiser (May 13, 2005)

Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.  

Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## SION (May 13, 2005)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.
> 
> Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning.
> 
> ...


I think I see were you are going,

Its like learning to spell and write, two differant things. But to begin with everyone learns the same way, we all copy the base alphabet in large print[basics] we then move on to spell short words [techniques], then comes writing once we have learned our alphabet and the neccesarry words to put sentences together, over time we learn to write stories. Some then move to more specialist writing [Doc's SL4], others are happy where they are, they keep writing different stories in different ways. Some go on to learn other languages,[different arts] some make up their own language [foo man choo].

Up shot we all learn in Kenpo the same standardised basics.

C


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.
> 
> Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning.
> 
> ...


That would be incorrect. You cannot suggest all of Kenpo should follow what is in Infinite Insights. In terms of information it is an extremely shallow conceptual work by design. They were written for all martial artists, not just kenpo, and these books actually do not tell you HOW to do anything.


----------



## Mark Weiser (May 13, 2005)

Well just as anything in Life that I tell everyone when they give an opinion. It is just that an opinion and your entitled to it.  I wonder if and we may all have the same question when reading this thread. 

I wonder what SGM Parker would be doing with this question. LOL


----------



## Bode (May 13, 2005)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Well just as anything in Life that I tell everyone when they give an opinion. It is just that an opinion and your entitled to it. I wonder if and we may all have the same question when reading this thread.
> 
> I wonder what SGM Parker would be doing with this question. LOL


 I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think it's less of an opinion and more of stating what, when reading Infinite Insights, seems clear. The books were conceptual. Yes, there are Kenpo techniques in some of the books, but not very specifically written. Just as it is difficult to learn basics from a video, it is difficult to learn them from a book. There are ideas throughout the books that are sometime discarded and not mentioned again. They are concepts he seemd to throw to the wind, used or not, by the martial arts community. Thoughts about the martial arts in general. I don't think he ever say's, "It must be done this way because...." Rather, he presents concepts for people to pick and choose from. I'd even be willing to bet that if I read them again I could find contradictions in his writings. 
 The Infinite Insight series is so tightly connected to Kenpo, which is unfortunate, because any Martial art could benefit from applying the more generic concepts within. 

 Did Mr. Parker intend the books to be strictly for Kenpo? Any comments Doc?


----------



## Rick Wade (May 13, 2005)

OK I am going to jump in, late in the conversation so I may be off base here but I like the thought of only having the sets and forms standardized.  I like going to others American Kenpo Schools and asking If I can drop in? They say sure come on down and then I see techniques that are not done not exactly like I know them and I start asking questions (after class of course) sometimes I get enlightened and sometimes I think they are full of scheisse.  I always come back with more information than I started my journey with.  My point is the forms and sets are the base of the system.  I don't like to look at it as right and wrong way to do a technique I like to look at it as if there were a right and better way to do a technique.  

Just my two cents worth.

V/R

Rick


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 13, 2005)

1. General problem--it looks to me like a number of the people who militate for, 'standards,' in kenpo (including those who militate for business standards) are primarily motivated by their desire for power. No, I don't have anybody on this forum in mind (off the forum, I ain't saying)--but I do mean to say that if you look with one eye only, you'll see a lot of little tin godism out there. "Standards," are just an excuse, among many other excuses.

2. General problem--based on my limited look at tournaments, videos, etc., the standards for basics (especially including stances!) are not high in the wunndeful world of kenpo. When I go to a tournament and see a "high-ranking," kenpoista do Long 4 without power, focus, well-shaped weapons or heart, something is rotten in the state. How to fix this I have no idea, because it's my distinct impression that imposing some sort of national board would only create worse problems. Fortunately, I have a back yard and the wherewithal of various sorts to keep learning--because the day a board starts standardizing is the day I quit organized kenpo. Not gonna happen anyway.

3. Kenpo is not the study of motion. Kenpo is the study of a, "scientific," method of self-defense, and maybe the study of the "internal," aspects of a martial art. The study of motion is a tool, a means to the real end.  Or to quote the Car Talk guys, "We're not interested in cars! we're interested in PEOPLE! Cars are just a way to talk to them!!"

4. At the same time, kenpo simply isn't arranged or theorized so that you can simply ignore the correct motion in favor of some fancied goal. There ARE right ways and wrong ways; even at very advanced levels, you simply can't do whatever the hell you please and call it good kenpo. Among other things, this would violate the whole idea of having a, "universal pattern," or calling kenpo a, "martial science."

5. For example, there ARE right ways and wrong ways to do basics. You do not hook an inward block towards you, or stick your elbow out when you're doing an inward block, or ignore the proper relationship between the block and the stance--not if you want the block to work. Same with stances, same with everything. 

6. We would be better off if Bruce Lee and his brilliant arguments were ignored. Far too many people, and not just in kenpo neither, use that stuff as an excuse to do everything else but learn the damn basics--an excuse to avoid sweating. 

7. The techniques in, "Infinite Insights," are described with exquisite clarity, and so are the forms, and so are the basics. Yes, Mr. Parker (like many of his students) tended to teach the techniques different ways every single time. But books have to be frozen insofar as their words are concerned--and as a result, what we have there (and in the manuals too) is a pretty good account of the base technique. You should learn the ideal first unless there's some over-riding reason not to--like absolute and unchangeable physical incapacity. Then, you should extract the principle of what you're teaching, and adapt it for the student. 

8. Again, learning the piano or ballet demands seemingly endless, seemingly robotic practice. All those goddamn scales, arpeggios, rhythym exercises, jetes, plies--boring, boring, boring. Unless of course you happen to have a teacher (or you realize) that the boring repetitions are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Which is changing YOU--not the system, YOU. Kenpo teachers and students have a lot to learn from the likes of Baryshnikov, Rubenstein, Gelsey Kirkland, Allegra Kent, and all the rest. Like patience and discipline, and a little faith in their teachers.

9. There is no substitute for a good teacher--which means somebody who will work to teach you what they were taught. If you think you're above all the menial labor--and that's what's going on in some of these arguments, guys who think they're too cool to do the grunt work--good for you. 

10. General problem--there seems to be something inherent in kenpo that encourages a kind of laziness, rush, and characterlessness. One of the reasons for the basics is the disciplining of the self. I do not believe that you can simply think your way to self-discipline, or innovate your way to it either. 

Did I miss ticking off anybody?


----------



## Bode (May 13, 2005)

I want to say that I agree with 90% of what you say. Basics are lacking. Power and standardization go hand in hand sometimes. Definetly. 



> Kenpo is not the study of motion. Kenpo is the study of a, "scientific," method of self-defense


 So it is scientific... i just want to establish that. 



> 4. At the same time, kenpo simply isn't arranged or theorized so that you can simply ignore the correct motion in favor of some fancied goal. There ARE right ways and wrong ways; even at very advanced levels, you simply can't do whatever the hell you please and call it good kenpo. Among other things, this would violate the whole idea of having a, "universal pattern," or calling kenpo a, "martial science."


 If kenpo is a science, as above, then why can't we call it a martial science? I tend to think that we agree way more than will ever be determined on this board. 



> The techniques in, "Infinite Insights," are described with exquisite clarity, and so are the forms, and so are the basics.


 Depends on what standards you are holding to your level of clarity. Regardless, it is still a book and as such, lacks a great deal of informatioin you can only get from a competent teacher. 



> Again, learning the piano or ballet demands seemingly endless, seemingly robotic practice. All those goddamn scales, arpeggios, rhythym exercises, jetes, plies--boring, boring, boring. Unless of course you happen to have a teacher (or you realize) that the boring repetitions are doing what they're supposed to be doing.


 Profoundly important statement. 
 I wish the world were so perfect that everyone would stick through the basics. Not all schools have the luxury of taking their time with students. To do that would be to go out of business so many schools, much like social promotion in our school system, move them right along. 



> there seems to be something inherent in kenpo that encourages a kind of laziness, rush, and characterlessness.


 Seems to me that speed plays into this. Everyone wants to round the corners and have blazing hands as quickly as possible. Speed is a signature of kenpo. Too bad. People would be much faster if they concentrated on basics first. 

 And no, you didn't tick me off. You have some very insightful posts. We only disagree on a few points, but they are big ones! And as I said, in person this would all smoothe over. I guarantee without a doubt you would see my basics in every single movement. (I've seen people have to sit down in class because they weren't performing a forward bow properly and coudn't or wouldn't correct it)

  PS> I don't do a modified side horse when delivering my inward block.


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

Well here's the problem I see with a couple of points of view. What some are speaking of is *A Kenpo*, not the definitive kenpo. And the kenpo you speak of is NOT definitive, and that is why everyone is different. The forms and sets generated for it are not the base, but only conceptual ideas to in some cases be explored, and in others created to keep you "busy." The forms themselves are a combination of several different eras and interpretations with the later ones designed strickly for the "business" of Kenpo.

The original forms and sets have specific purposes when Parker began studying with the Chinese. "Star Block" came right from Ark Wong. What became "Short One" and "Short Two" used to be one form, and was then cut in half to make two for the "business." Some forms like "Tiger and Crane" came from Hung Gar and had various interpretations and influences, and were later dropped. "Two-Man Set," came from Jimmy Woo and came to be known as the "Book Set" and then too it was dropped. The number "one" sets were influnced by several people in the Chinese arts in conjunction with Parker, and the "two" sets were created by Jim Mitchell in some cases.

These are not opinions they are facts of reality of what Mr. Parker was doing. I know Infinite Insights well, and was in everyone of them. I know what thet are and what they represented.

I know the tendancy is for people to embrace what they do as a single entity of Mr. Parker's design, and there is nothing wrong with that. But at the same time you must also acknowledge there are other interpretations also of Mr. Parker's design that co-existed and evolved concurrently with, and pre-date his business version.

We must stop speaking of kenpo as this single entity of which everyone has the same understanding, with the expectations that somehow everyone should be, or could be all the same. That is not possible. Look at the diversity even before Parker created the business model. Chuck Sullivan was different from Dave Hebler, who is different from Steve Hearring, who is different from James Ibrao, who is different from Dave German, who is different from Steve LaBounty, who is different from Mike Pick, who is different from Bob Parry, who is different from Joe Dimmick, who is different from me, etc 

And everyone of these guys were there BEFORE the Kenpo that you understand that's represented in Infinite Insights even existed. Even in the book it states the conceptual information was accumulated within a 10 year period between about 1970 to 1980. Mr. Parker lived and learned long before that, and for a decade after that material was put together and it is only a very small slice of the mans life, and a drop in the bucket of his knowledge. 

Some would LIKE to make it that simple, and wrap everything into these books. Some would like you to think its that simple and believe the forms and sets are the base of the art. Some would like you to believe that what you are looking at is *THE* Kenpo instead of just the small part of Kenpo that it is.

The people that came after 67/68 are relegated, (unless they venture out) to the motion based commercial interpretation and they call it THE Kenpo. yet all of those who came before that, do something a tad different and don't do Motion-Kenpo at all. Not one of them including me.

So anytime anyone speaks of Kenpo as a single entity, they'll hear from me. I certainly am kenpo and I studied without break with the progenitor, and I'm "different." So is Hearring, and LaBounty, and Pick, and ... well, you get the idea. There will always be major differences between at least two of the eras. Most do Kenpo from the commercial era. Some of us are "B.C." and will always be different. If you have respect for the Man, then you have to honor all of his work, not just the motion vehicle he came up with that made many of his later students a pretty good living.

Now that's my dime rant aimed and particularly no one.


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. General problem--it looks to me like a number of the people who militate for, 'standards,' in kenpo (including those who militate for business standards) are primarily motivated by their desire for power. No, I don't have anybody on this forum in mind (off the forum, I ain't saying)--but I do mean to say that if you look with one eye only, you'll see a lot of little tin godism out there. "Standards," are just an excuse, among many other excuses.
> 
> 2. General problem--based on my limited look at tournaments, videos, etc., the standards for basics (especially including stances!) are not high in the wunndeful world of kenpo. When I go to a tournament and see a "high-ranking," kenpoista do Long 4 without power, focus, well-shaped weapons or heart, something is rotten in the state. How to fix this I have no idea, because it's my distinct impression that imposing some sort of national board would only create worse problems. Fortunately, I have a back yard and the wherewithal of various sorts to keep learning--because the day a board starts standardizing is the day I quit organized kenpo. Not gonna happen anyway.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you missed me. With the exception of a couple of minor points, I generally agree with what you said.


----------



## KenpoDave (May 13, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well here's the problem I see with a couple of points of view. What some are speaking of is *A Kenpo*, not the definitive kenpo. And the kenpo you speak of is NOT definitive, and that is why everyone is different. The forms and sets generated for it are not the base, but only conceptual ideas to in some cases be explored, and in others created to keep you "busy." The forms themselves are a combination of several different eras and interpretations with the later ones designed strickly for the "business" of Kenpo.



I snipped it for space.  Doc, well said.  Be careful, though, this is the stuff Al Tracy has been saying for years, and you see where it got him...


----------



## KenpoDave (May 13, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Yeah, you missed me. With the exception of a couple of minor points, I generally agree with what you said.



Yep.  Me too.  It was a well thought out post.


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> My worry is:
> "When does it stop being American Kenpo"
> 
> We tend to be all inclusive in an umbrella of Kenpo, and tolerate a lot of deviation when it comes to techniques, forms, sets, and some basics. When and who would decide when an organization strays too far afield (if in fact there is any such thing.)  Think about James Ibrao's Kenpo as vs. Dennis Conatser's.  Where the Priciples, Concepts, and Theories as developed by Mr. Parker are consciously applied, is that Kenpo?  How about those arts that use them, but cannot articulate why they do what they do.  Does it take standardization of techniques & forms ... or is it principles and concepts?
> ...


You're just too dam smart.


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> I am about to get in trouble here.  Once again, American Kenpo is not the only viable flavor of Kenpo.  As stated there are a number of different styles of Kenpo that would, at least in my paradigm, not mesh into a viable admixture that could reasonably be called American Kenpo.
> 
> I think that things went too long without any attempts to achieve a meeting of the minds, and I'm really not sure that it could ever really happen or have happened the way some folks are envisioning it.
> 
> ...


Took you long enough Dan. Of course there is Kenpo other than Ed Parker influnced as well, even beyond Al Tracy, who as another off-shoot, can probably never be reconciled with any Parker interpretation in his eyes. And even if it did, Al would probably change it.

As far as the sub-cultures dying out, I'm not so sure. I know from experience the dominant Kenpo is the commercial variety for what I consider obvious reasons. It is a given that human nature will always dictate the search for the "easy way." Witness the proliferation of video and distance learning programs. As much a joke as they are profitable, they still exist and show signs of having real legs. Why? So some people can say, "I studied and got a belt." Even if how they studied is laughable. I suspect money will keep the weak stuff around. true some will die out but they will be replaced by equally bad material, and probably died more from mismanagement than anything else.

Hey Dan, remember when you knew every Chinese, Korean, and Japanese style there was? Now every 20 year old with a DVD player who has a Bruce lee video and book has created their own style. I suspects it will only get worse. 

I like what Parker said. "If everybody is doing it, it can't be the good stuff." The more sophisticated, difficult, and effective the material, the less people will sign on for the long haul. That's life. Pass me the video, I got a test coming up.


----------



## Doc (May 13, 2005)

KenpoDave said:
			
		

> I snipped it for space.  Doc, well said.  Be careful, though, this is the stuff Al Tracy has been saying for years, and you see where it got him...


My teacher always taught me to give credit where credit is due, even if it hurts. Tell the truth and let it be. Parker gave Al credit when it was due, and so do I, but that other stuff I don't sign on to. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't make a living teaching kenpo so nobody can hurt me, and besides nobody has invited me to a camp since I knocked that guy out in Vegas in 98. Scared the bejeebas out of the instructors but the students loved it. I guess I'm destined to be a solo act.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 13, 2005)

I hate it when nobody yells at me.

Fact is, "commercial," kenpo is in all of our hearts, and we have to struggle against it all the time.

Interesting thread, all in all.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (May 14, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> Did Mr. Parker intend the books to be strictly for Kenpo? Any comments


 *No*.  He knew that _anyone_ that could see the logic  in *human movement* could benefit at what he discovered "if they but try"  and apply the principles.  

 The material is always pointed at the  _*individual*_, never is there a mention of his findings only  being _"system specific_".   That would be like saying Basketball is only  applicable for Americans or Golf is only for the English or Tennis is only for  the French..... well you get the idea.

 :asian:


----------

