# Loyalty to the EPAK system?



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 26, 2006)

Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:

1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).

2) Mr. Parker also openly told people to be as creative as possible. Creativity doesn't have the same limitations as 'tailoring'. Something can be created "from scratch" and therefore be very different from the "starting material".

3) Mr. Parker never remained "traditional" and altered his sytem several times.

4) Mr. Parker didn't remain 'loyal' to the system he studied or EPAK would have never been created.

5) Mr. Parker's son studies Kenpo from what he has referred to in print as a "progressive source" and not his father's original version. The term 'progressive' is particularly powerful in this instance.

6) Kenpo is just information. How does one remain loyal to information? Information is supposed to serve mankind, not vice versa.

7) Kenpo is often referred to as a fighting science or technology. Most of the best science and technology on the planet constantly changes and improves. If being Loyal means never changing, how does Kenpo keep up?

8) Some of the best ideas have remained largely unchanged for centuries. Examples: The wheel, simple machines, pulleys and levers, the arch, etc. Is EPAK in the same category?

With all that said what does loyalty to EPAK truly mean? To me I remain loyal by teaching the curriculum MOSTLY as I learned it but with additions that I feel are useful in certain places. I don't, however, delete any material. I only add it. But I don't feel this is an adequate way to describe the loyalty.

What does 'loyalty to the EPAK system' mean to you?


----------



## simon (Jun 26, 2006)

i think being loyal is to always respect the the ways of the original teachers and the teachers before us, keeping up the good name of the art and being helpful to the future instructors by setting them a good example.
the techniques may change or vary to keep up with times, but the principles behind them and the strategies will always be their, without the principles the art is just a keep fit class.
samurai never had hand guns and cars an elevators and all the modern technology, yet jujitsu instructors still teach modern and traditional jujitsu because all the principles are still as valid today as they ever were.
kenpo is exactly the same, mr parker knew that things would change over time, so laid out the principles to how things should be done, such as marriage of gravity and back up mass, they are not techs but principles to be applied to techs, sticking to these and being corteuos and respectful to others means you are being loyal to the art.


----------



## bushi jon (Jun 26, 2006)

As a kenpo/ highbreed guy I welcome change in anything and the way to honor your teacher is to become better than them.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 26, 2006)

Is EPAK a system or a way of thinking?

For me it is to remain true to the philosophy of EPAK.  What is that philosophy?  That is another question in itself.  For me it is ever-learning with an open mind, question all that you do, understand why/what you are doing, continuing to look for not yet understood principles in your material.  

Good question.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2006)

K3,

I think you have made some extremely valid observations.

Personally, I feel that when we learn an art, we learn it the best that we can and make it our own.  Of course we are not perfect and there is always more to learn and a better understanding to be gained, but all we can do is do our best.  

I also believe very strongly that this means we must feel liberated to make changes that seem reasonable and appropriate.  This might include adding things, and also deleting things.  Ultimately, as your own art, you are responsible to think for yourself and make your own decisions about it.

Nothing in the martial arts, including kenpo, was Divinely inspired.  This stuff was created by people who, while they were certainly talented and intelligent and insightful, were not perfect, and were not gods.  It most certainly can be changed.  And making changes, even radical changes, does not imply disloyalty or dishonor to the art.  It means you have taken your lessons and you seek to improve things so that it is best for you.  Someday your own students will do the same.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 27, 2006)

I pulled out one of the Infinite Insights into Kenpo books (#5) to go over some material for class and came across the dedication in the front of the book.  I think it nails things right on the head.

Dedication from IIIK #5:

To all readers of my five volume series of Infinite Insights into Kenpo, who, with an open mind, have taken on the challenge to examine, investigate, explore, expand, and expound on the principles , and concepts offered therein, I dedicate this book.

My loyalty to kenpo has a lot to do with that statement.  


We were given the map, now it is up to us to find the treasures within the art.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> ...to examine, investigate, explore, expand, and expound on the principles , and concepts offered therein...


 
That pretty much sums it up, straight from the horse's mouth.  

It's easy to become dogmatic about things, and want to preserve them exactly how they were done before us.  We tend to put the founders up on a pedestal and assume that they could do no wrong and what they created was perfect.  But the founders (in this case, Mr. Parker), knew that it was not perfect (at least not for everyone), and we all need to make the art our own, which includes making appropriate changes.


----------



## Bode (Jun 28, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> We were given the map, now it is up to us to find the treasures within the art.



This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher.  That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....

PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 28, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....
> 
> PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.


 
Agree with you on some of this.  After 18+ years of training I will not claim to have every element of EPAK (that was never my intention).  I agree that tailoring/exploring to early will rob a student of learning a solid understanding of the art.  The base art is still needed.  But to say that one way is the only way, contricts us with limitations.  Even GM Parker began to change a system he did not fully understand.  Should he have waited until he was a Grandmaster in his intial art before creating EPAK?  Would he have learned many of the aspects of EPAK if he stayed with his initial studies?  We will never know.  

Training and exploring for many years would not be stumbling, it would be a journey.  A journey with no end.

This is what I enjoy about kenpo... the different views we have.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....
> 
> PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.


 
This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.  

I agree, anyone learning the martial arts needs a good teacher to learn it properly.  You cannot figure out many of the subtleties on your own, without a solid background of training.

I haven't studied EPAK "commercial" system so I cannot comment on it with any specifics.

I have tried to keep an open mind regarding SL4, and I have tried to respectfully engage in discussions to understand where SL4 is coming from, and what their angle is.  Dave's posts have been informative and respectful, and have done more than anyone else to help me understand this, and gain some respect for what the SL4 approach is and attempts to accomplish. 

But this position that you have taken implies that what you do in SL4 is the only way it can be done with any quality, and everyone else is junk.  

SL4 may be an outstanding method of kenpo.  Having never studied it, I don't know first hand, but I am willing to accept that on face value until it is proven otherwise to me.  But this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage, strikes me as pure, myopic arrogance.


----------



## Bode (Jun 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.
> But this position that you have taken implies that what you do in SL4 is the only way it can be done with any quality, and everyone else is junk.
> 
> SL4 may be an outstanding method of kenpo.  Having never studied it, I don't know first hand, but I am willing to accept that on face value until it is proven otherwise to me.  But this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage, strikes me as pure, myopic arrogance.



I know I can write some things online that come off incorrectly. Doc does the same thing. I fully admit this, however, in this case I have no idea how you moved from my statements to "this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage" is beyond me. 

I never even mentioned SL4. Would this have been an issue if you didn't know I was a student of Doc's? Did I criticize your Kenpo? No... you inferred, somehow, that was talking about you and being critical of your art or everyone's art in general. 

There are many great Kenpo teachers around. Many not so great. Ultimately it is up to you as a student to decide the value of the information. If you feel you are receiving good information then I applaud your teacher. 



> This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.



The people in the SL4 camp are not critical of any one teacher. I can't recall ever bagging on anybody. In fact, I challend you to find a post with me talking about someones technique in a crude way. 
What we do strive for is excellance on every level. Robert hit the nail on the head on KenpoNet when he said this referring to Doc and SL4:



> "[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]And I'm pretty damn sure that what REALLY pisses off some readers is, a) his insistence on taking the time to build a solid foundation; b) his indictment of the, "get rich quick," strain in contemporary martial arts; c) his identification of the difference between tailoring kenpo and bull****, between real creativity and fingerpainting."
> [/FONT]



Flying Crane, I have appreciated a lot of your efforts to understand SL4. You've remained civil and approachable. But please, do not read into my statements as speaking of your teacher or skill. This is just the way we, in SL4, see the Martial Arts world. It is your right to disagree, but please don't extrapolate meaning from a statement that has none.



> Training and exploring for many years would not be stumbling, it would be a journey.  A journey with no end.


True. I guess my point is that we should be standing on the shoulders of those who stood before us and not re-discovering what they had already learned. That way the art progresses with each generation. We should all end up being as good as our teachers or better. 



> This is what I enjoy about kenpo... the different views we have.


Yes. And until fists meet flesh or there is a battle royal between schools we will have no clue who speaks the most truth. That's the fun of it. On the internet it's all absent of the physical element. 

If am am coming off to anyone as arrogant or critical of your art, please, PM me. I will gladly try to remedy the problem. I have no intention of discrediting your art. Indeed I go out of my way to make sure I don't.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> I know I can write some things online that come off incorrectly. Doc does the same thing. I fully admit this, however, in this case I have no idea how you moved from my statements to "this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage" is beyond me.
> 
> I never even mentioned SL4. Would this have been an issue if you didn't know I was a student of Doc's? Did I criticize your Kenpo? No... you inferred, somehow, that was talking about you and being critical of your art or everyone's art in general.
> 
> ...


 
Alright, if I misunderstood your intent, I apologise and I don't want to start a fight with anybody.  I've said it before: things get misunderstood on the internet, I hope this is just another unfortunate case of that.  I do know that you are with Doc in SL4, so I guess it was my assumption that your comments are coming from that base.  It looked like there was an agenda, but if I'm wrong in that assumption, again I apologize.



> *This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge*.[quote/]
> 
> This sounds to me like a blast at much of the other Parker kenpo outside of SL4.   Again, I haven't trained EPAK, so I don't have any vested interest in its reputation, but I am sure there are well trained and highly skilled EPAK people out there who understand what they are doing with rearranging and tailoring and such.  It just came off sounding like you are writing them all off as a bunch of stumbling nitwits.  If this was not your intended message, I apologize for my reaction based on a misinterpretation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bode (Jun 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This sounds to me like a blast at much of the other Parker kenpo outside of SL4.   Again, I haven't trained EPAK, so I don't have any vested interest in its reputation, but I am sure there are well trained and highly skilled EPAK people out there who understand what they are doing with rearranging and tailoring and such.  It just came off sounding like you are writing them all off as a bunch of stumbling nitwits.  If this was not your intended message, I apologize for my reaction based on a misinterpretation.



The intention was to blast the people who train for a few years and decide they are going to branch out on their own and discover the treasures for themselves. This is true arrogance. They leave their teacher with the belief that they will be able to simply happen upon the knowledge with deep enough exploration. Richard Feynman didn't win the nobel prize after studying physics for two years. 
And yes, their are great EPAK people out there who have earned the right to tailor and rearrange. I am not denying that. SL4 doesn't own this right. Labounty, Hebler, Conatster, Trejo.... there is a list. 




> Of course we all need good teachers.  Again, knowing your background, it sounded like you were implying that SL4 method is the only method thru which someone can find and become a good teacher.  Another wrong interpretation on my part?  ok, fair enough, my apologys.



Had nothing to do with SL4. As I said, a "good teacher". Not Doc. Not me. No one specific. Hopefully we all have the ability to recognize a good teacher when we see one and seek them out. 



> OK, i'll admit, i'm not sure i understand what you mean by putting these two sentences together.  On the surface, they seem to contradict each other.  But the last sentence sounds to me like an indictment of all EPAK outside of SL4 (again, it is hard for me to separate your comments from SL4, knowing this is where you are).


 I can see why. Here is what I meant. Ed Parker actually encouraged tailoring and exploration amongst his students. It ended up being a double edged sword. While it brought a lot of students to his schools from other arts and made him wealthy, it also made many people believe they had the ability to tailor. As if anyone can do it. The truth is that very few have earned that right. The monster is in reference to all the people running around believing they are ready to alter/change or tailor the art to a high degree. He created it by encouraging it. 



> Having trained in the Tracy system, I am not even sure if that would be considered a "Commercial" or "motion -based" kenpo.  Knowing the large chain of schools under Tracys, I guess it is commercial in that respect, but I don't know if, based on Doc's definition of "motion-based", Tracys would fall within that definition.  I see a lot of comments aimed at the "motion based" kenpo, I wonder if that includes me, or if it is really aimed at the kenpo that was developed after the Tracys split from Mr. Parker.


 I don't even attempt to classify Tracy's Kenpo. That's not my area of expertise. The Tracy's split off when EP was in his Chinese Kenpo phase. That means what they learned from EP was bounded by that time period. 



> When I was in college back in about 1991 and was a pure Kenpoist, I met a kid (exchange student at my college) from Mexico City.  He was a Tae Kwon Do guy and his goal was to be in the Mexican Olympic Tae Kwon Do team.  At the time, my teachers and I had a habit of taking pot shots at Tae Kwon Do.  My teachers had trained the art, one of them was a TKD blackbelt as well, so I took their word for it that TKD was no good.  Well, I worked out and sparred a couple of times with this kid, and he cleaned me out pretty thoroughly.  And this wasn't heavily padded Olympic style sparring.  We wore no pads and he was fast and hit hard and was working these textbook-perfect techniques on me and it just blew me away.  Kenpo was supposed to be SO MUCH BETTER than TKD.  What went wrong?  It took me a long time to be able to admit to myself, much less on a public internet forum, that this kid really beat me soundly.  I was in denial about it for a long time, and I missed an opportunity to keep training with this kid and learn some things from him.  My pride didn't allow it.  At any rate, it really opened my eyes to what someone could do with TKD.  It didn't make me interested in studying the art, but I certainly gained a lot of respect for what different people can do with different arts.  I think about this a lot, especially when it looks to me like someone is making broad generalizations about the superiority of one art over another.


Bottom line. He had a good teacher and was probably physically gifted. I would never study Kenpo just because it's kenpo. I would look at the teacher and ask myself, "Can he teach me how to fight better than the TKD instructor down the street." If the answer is no, then I wouldn't be doing Kenpo right now. 
In the absence of ANY good teacher. Teaching yourself is acceptable. Striving to put logic before "coolness". 

I respect your forthrightness and I try to understand everyone's perspective. I know there is a lot of bad history with SL4 and how some of the articles/posts have come off in the past, so I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. 
Hope my post clarifies some of my statements.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 28, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that.


 
Where are you getting this from?  In my experience with the "motion kenpo" world this has simply not been the case at large.  Who thinks that they can discover the treasures of kenpo without a competent instructor?  Who has stated this and where is it documented?

And by exploration someone will invariably stumble upon something.  Alot of the worlds best inventions were discovered/created by accident.  It's not the most efficient way of learning by far, but it does happen.  The whole "reverse motion" concept of "motion kenpo" as you call it was a self-admitted accident on Mr. Parker's part by being too lazy to switch a tape reel so he played it backwards and saw it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2006)

Thanks for your reply, Bode.  Cheers.


----------



## Doc (Jun 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this from?  In my experience with the "motion kenpo" world this has simply not been the case at large.  Who thinks that they can discover the treasures of kenpo without a competent instructor?  Who has stated this and where is it documented?


Mr. Parker promoted this concept generationally. You may not have seen it in your genration/region, etc but your teacher(s) or their teacher(s) certainly did, and what they all taught was a product of that commercial philosophy that Ed Parker introduced out of necessity to proliferate *ONE* aspect of his many arts. But Mr. Parker had more than one version of his art and more than one functioning philosphy and all of them were not created equally.

Most don't even realize that the majority of the black belts on the original family tree were not even original Parker students or even his black belts. Only a handful of people actually began as white belts and advanced to black under Mr. Parker, and this was at a time when making black in a year was common. 

Most came from another style. Parker gave them this commercial conceptual approach to allow them to make the art functional as they felt comfortable. Their interpretation is what they learned and taught, and these variables continue to play themselves out downstream in their various lineages today. 

People like Myself, or a Steve LaBounty, and others never even learned the 'motion based system,' or had any desire to do so. We recognized it for what it is, but were already involved in what we knew was good material that was already working quite nicely. This whole 'expansion thing' was for the strip mall crowd and the kids were beginning to pour in, (and still remain the base of cash flow). Doesn't mean there aren't some really good people out there, but like pigeon English, they're working from a short alphabet, and that's why the good ones explore other arts to suppliment the commercial system which by design  doesn't contain certain information. If its in there, it came from the teacher not the system.

I remember meeting a well known Grandmaster from a different Kenpo Perspective on the east coast many years ago before he passed away. He told me, "You know Parker went Hollywood." I said, "No sir, he went commercial." He said, "You're right."


> And by exploration someone will invariably stumble upon something.  Alot of the worlds best inventions were discovered/created by accident.  It's not the most efficient way of learning by far, but it does happen.  The whole "reverse motion" concept of "motion kenpo" as you call it was a self-admitted accident on Mr. Parker's part by being too lazy to switch a tape reel so he played it backwards and saw it.


First "reverse motion" yielded the motion based commercial art. Some might argue that was not exactly the best thing, but was indeed lucrative to those who chose to make that their focus.

I agree that singular things may be found by accident, but those who accidently 'stumbled' upon such things did so with a wealth of information already. You don't 'stumble' upon complex mathematical methodologies without a knowledge of some fairly complex math to begin with. Nobody 'discovered' how to send a man to the moon, and Einstein didn't discover E=mc2, he reasoned it from a previous knowledge base. Context is everything.

Lastly I think, despite my continuous pounding of the subject, there is no singular Kenpo in the Ed Parker Lineage that wholly shares philosophies or execution methodologies, and the sooner we realize for better or worse that "Kenpo" is as generic as "karate," the better these discussions will become.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jun 28, 2006)

I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo.  I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven.  Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.  

The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated.  If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts.  There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique.  An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction.  The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.

Loyalty to the EPAK system???  Which system, which evolution???  Remember, unless you were there, you don't even know what you do not know.  Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising.  There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated.  Be honest with yourself, and the only way you can judge ability is not on a keyboard, but getting out and seeing the other guys out there doing a similar art.  Check out other arts, they all have something to teach (even if it is how NOT to do something). You should look for the positive and see what others may have, even if it is one move, one lock, one strike or throw.  Mind like a parachute; don't go down in flames with it unopened.

-Michael


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:
> 
> 1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).
> 
> ...


 
Great thread James!  Oddly enough, I had a conversation with Clyde last night and we were speaking of people making changes in the art and rather than running off and create something because "X" move, technique, etc. would not work for them, try to find out how you can make it work and perhaps where the link to understanding the move, isn't being made.  I'll address the above comments below.

1)  Now, its probably not in the best interest to make a change if the material is not understood.  I may have a hard time making Squatting Sacrafice work, so should I go and change it, creating a 'new' technique or should I find someone who can show me how to make it work?  Now if I was teaching someone and they were having a difficult time, due to a height disadvantage, perhaps, they could make a slight adjustment in footwork, etc. to compensate, but they're still not changing the tech. per se.

2)  Should people create something new?  There are people out there that have created new techs. and dropped old ones.

3) Yes he did.  I'm sure he made changes from the way he learned.

4) Agreed

5)  Would he still be considered loyal?

6) True

7)  Thats a good point.  Things are always evolving.  Cars, medicine, research, etc.  Maybe those that made a change were on to something.

8)  So if its not broke don't fix it, so to speak.

We all have to go with the hand that was dealt to us.  Unless we move to an area, such as the Meca of Kenpo..So Cal...we just have to do the best we can with our training.  SL4, commercial, motion, or whatever else we want to call it, what matters most, IMHO, is, is what we're doing working for us?


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 29, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo. I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven. Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.
> 
> The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated. If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts. There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique. An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction. The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.
> 
> ...


 
Good stuff Mr. Billings!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 29, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo. I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven. Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.
> 
> The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated. If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts. There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique. An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction. The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.
> 
> ...


 
Great stuff especially the last paragraph!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 29, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Great thread James! Oddly enough, I had a conversation with Clyde last night and we were speaking of people making changes in the art and rather than running off and create something because "X" move, technique, etc. would not work for them, try to find out how you can make it work and perhaps where the link to understanding the move, isn't being made. I'll address the above comments below.
> 
> 1) Now, its probably not in the best interest to make a change if the material is not understood. I may have a hard time making Squatting Sacrafice work, so should I go and change it, creating a 'new' technique or should I find someone who can show me how to make it work? Now if I was teaching someone and they were having a difficult time, due to a height disadvantage, perhaps, they could make a slight adjustment in footwork, etc. to compensate, but they're still not changing the tech. per se.
> 
> ...


 
Good stuff MJS.  Long time since we chatted on here.  Here are some of my thoughts about changing kenpo.  I originally posted this on KenpoNet:

Mr. Parker's creativity and ingenuity aside.... He added things to his expression of the arts (termed: Kenpo) and deleted them as well as he saw fit during his lifetime. Who is to say that someone else cannot do the same? Mr. Parker most certainly did not keep everything he learned from Chow. So following that example there will and possibly (depending on your veiwpoint) should be those that don't keep everything they learned from Mr. Parker.

American Kenpo is like any other system. It's applied information or a tool. If someone decides to change something it isn't them failing the information as a person cannot fail a tool, the tool can fail a person however.  But with Kenpo this isn't the case.  If someone decides to change, delete or add anything they are finding a different way to use their "tool" and may be considering new tools as well.

there is a saying my original Martial Arts instructor used to say: "I've probably forgotten more martial arts in my time than I'll ever get to teach you in my lifetime. I wish it weren't that way, but that's how life works."

Who knows how much Mr. Parker may have "forgetten" in passing along American Kenpo?

Also here is another way of looking at it. All kenpoists of a certain level are familiar with the equation formula with regards to technique alteration, tailoring and formulating. How about applying it to the system as a whole. Prefix the system requirements (like the yellow belt chart was a prefix), suffix the system requirements (like many of the extensions were a suffix), insert requirements into the system (like many of the "form techniques" on 2nd and 3rd Brown were), add requirements to the system (like alot of the "2" sets were), delete requirements from the system (like intellectual departure, the original knife form/set and a host other requirements were) rearrange the order of requirements in the system (32, 24, 16, etc.), alter the moves of the system (look how the moves changed since the book "Kenpo Karate"), adjust the moves of the system (Also see earlier books and manuals). There are those that have thought this way for years, many but not all of which are 1st Gen. Kenpo's history of changes and versions would indicate that Mr. Parker thought this way as well.

So the questions are:

1) Are people changing "Kenpo" because they can't get it to work or because they feel they can make it a little (or alot) better than Mr. Parker left it (Just like Mr. Parker did with what his instructor left him)?

and

2) Are people resistant to change based solely on Kenpo "working as is" or based more on just remaining "loyal" to what Mr. Parker did?

Only time will answer these questions and even then the answers will probably never have a concrete answer.


----------



## Seig (Jun 29, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:
> 
> 1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).


You're slightly off here. Mr. Parker encouraged instructors to tailor the art to their students. You wouldn't have a cook tailor your suit would you? This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.


> 2) Mr. Parker also openly told people to be as creative as possible. Creativity doesn't have the same limitations as 'tailoring'. Something can be created "from scratch" and therefore be very different from the "starting material".


Did he tell people to be creative or innovative? There's a distinct difference.


> 3) Mr. Parker never remained "traditional" and altered his sytem several times.


Really? How many of his close students such as Doc, Sigung, Mr. Trejo, etc refer to him as Ed? Altering the system is not becoming non traditional. Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way."


> 4) Mr. Parker didn't remain 'loyal' to the system he studied or EPAK would have never been created.


If you really believe that, I suggest you ask your teacher to explain the Parker Crest to you. Loyalty and subservience are not the same thing.


> 5) Mr. Parker's son studies Kenpo from what he has referred to in print as a "progressive source" and not his father's original version. The term 'progressive' is particularly powerful in this instance.


You have made a point here and let it dangle. Mr. Parker, Jr. has also stated that the martial aspect of Kenpo is not his passion. He prefers to be the "ambassador" and the "graphic" art part of the art.


> 6) Kenpo is just information. How does one remain loyal to information? Information is supposed to serve mankind, not vice versa.


Kenpo is just information? I love it. Caviar is just food. You remain loyal by understanding what you are studying, not just knowing of it. How does one earn a loyalty bonus when trading in a car? By trading in the same brand they are buying. You stay loyal to Kenpo by continuing to study it.


> 7) Kenpo is often referred to as a fighting science or technology. Most of the best science and technology on the planet constantly changes and improves. If being Loyal means never changing, how does Kenpo keep up?


Science and technology do advance, but guess what, the underlying methodolgy and basics do not change. Try telling your teacher that a horse stance is useless.


> 8) Some of the best ideas have remained largely unchanged for centuries. Examples: The wheel, simple machines, pulleys and levers, the arch, etc. Is EPAK in the same category?


 Obviously not, and your examples are flawed. The wheel has changed, the shape is essentially the same, but the configuration changes radically. What simple machines? Pulleys and levers have been redisgned based on a founding principle, for example, the compound bow. The arch serves a different purpose in everything. Is it decorative or architectural? Without understandanding that, you have only half a true statement, which makes it false. Epak follows this pattern, if you don't understand the underlying foundation, anything you build on it is weak.


> With all that said what does loyalty to EPAK truly mean? To me I remain loyal by teaching the curriculum MOSTLY as I learned it but with additions that I feel are useful in certain places. I don't, however, delete any material. I only add it. But I don't feel this is an adequate way to describe the loyalty.


One of our pledges mentions remaing loyal to the Organization and my Instructor, THAT is how I remain loyal to the system. By teaching what I was taught while furthering my own learning.
What do you mean mostly? What do you add? Why?





> What does 'loyalty to the EPAK system' mean to you?


Asked and answered.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.


 
Of course everyone will disagree on who is "qualified" to do so.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising.
> 
> There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated.


 
Good post, Michael, especially these bits.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 29, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> You're slightly off here. Mr. Parker encouraged instructors to tailor the art to their students. You wouldn't have a cook tailor your suit would you? This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.
> 
> Did he tell people to be creative or innovative? There's a distinct difference.
> 
> ...


 
1. I have seminar footage of parker telling people to tailor the art "to themselves"

2. Same seminar footage where he uses the terms creative and innovative

3. Two of the seniors you mentioned stated in my presence that Mr. Parker prefered "Ed", when relaying their memories of Mr. Parker too me at seminars.

4. "Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way."  That's why I quoted "traditional" because that's how it's commonly used.

5.  there was nothig to let "dangle" the point was made and left for people to have something to think about without a "leading question"

6. Your "car loyalty" analogy parallels several Kenpoists denouncing of cross-training.  Several Seniors (Planas come to mind first) Cross train.

7.  Exactly my thoughts.

8.  The examples aren't flawed, it's for the purposes of discussing your answer to number 7.

9.  You read my post and "assumed" my views.  The points I posted are not my views but are for the purposes of promoting thought and discussion.


Good Answers, minus the assumptions.

Respect and Salute!


----------



## Seig (Jun 29, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> 1. I have seminar footage of parker telling people to tailor the art "to themselves"


I've seen the same footage, He was addressing a room full of black belts.


> 2. Same seminar footage where he uses the terms creative and innovative


Yep, I saw that too, and again, they have distinctly different meanings.


> 3. Two of the seniors you mentioned stated in my presence that Mr. Parker prefered "Ed", when relaying their memories of Mr. Parker too me at seminars.


Yes, he did. They have told me the same thing. Ask them if any of them took him up in it.


> 4. "Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way." That's why I quoted "traditional" because that's how it's commonly used.


 Agreed


> 5. there was nothig to let "dangle" the point was made and left for people to have something to think about without a "leading question"


But that's exaclty what you have done. You have lead people in to thinking of Mr. Parker, jr. as an absolute authority on the art. 


> 6. Your "car loyalty" analogy parallels several Kenpoists denouncing of cross-training. Several Seniors (Planas come to mind first) Cross train.


The only denouncement I do of cross training is by someone that doesn't know and understand their base art, Mr. Planas does not fit that example.


> 7. Exactly my thoughts.


Cool


> 8. The examples aren't flawed, it's for the purposes of discussing your answer to number 7.


 I still disagree but that's ok.


> 9. You read my post and "assumed" my views. The points I posted are not my views but are for the purposes of promoting thought and discussion.


No, I "assumed" nothing. I responded to exactly what I read, exactly the way I would respond to anyone who was seeking information.
I occassionally come across harsher than intended, and if that's the case, my apologies.


> Good Answers, minus the assumptions.
> 
> Respect and Salute!


:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> The only denouncement I do of cross training is by someone that doesn't know and understand their base art, Mr. Planas does not fit that example.
> 
> 
> :asian:


 
Again, how is it determined that someone knows and understands their base art well enough to justify cross training?  I think that is an ambiguous determination, something that few people will fully agree on.  There are many levels of understanding of an art, and where does the magic line lie, once you cross this line it is OK for you to cross train, or begin tailoring or altering the art? 

I believe that ultimately it is up to the individual to make this decision for himself.  After all, once you learn something, it belongs to you, for you to do with as you wish.  It is only knowledge, not a material possession that somebody can take away from you.  Ultimately, it needs to be useful for you.  Only you can determine if it is.  

Of course everyone would benefit from having a good teacher to guide them to a higher level.  BUt that is not always possible for many reasons.  It could be location, lack of teachers who you trust or believe they have something to offer, or other obligations in life that limit your ability to train with others so you make due as best as you can on your own.  In these cases, one must be one's own task master, and that includes making your own decisions about things.  If you spend your whole life always looking to others to tell you what to do and to legitimize what you do, then you have not really learned anything besides learning how to follow others and not think for yourself.  At some point people need to be able to stand on their own two feet. 

Of course different people have different abilities and experiences, and this makes some more qualified than others to make these decisions.  A complete newbie, with 6 months training is probably much less qualified than the 10, or 20, or 50 year veteran.  But where is the line drawn?  How do we decide when one can make a change or begin cross training?  It can't necessarily be based on a certain amount of time or rank achieved, because those are no guarantee of ability or knowledge.  It is a tough question to answer, and I don't pretend to have an answer beyond saying that if you have trained hard, done your best to understand things, and haven't found anyone who can help you understand things any better than you do, and you still see problems with some of the material, then you are ready to make some changes.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 29, 2006)

Michael:

Excellent point, and unfortunately, we will never have an agreeable yardstick for what constitutes a "good enough" understanding of the art to justify tailoring. I started a tailoring journey, sure I had the experience necessary to warrant it. Since then, I've had to go back to some ideas, and re-think the conclusions I originally drew, ceding their "incorrectness" as I go.

Example: The kenpo techs and forms include some pretty standard minor/major blocking combinations. Meaning, before an outward block, with one hand, the opposite hand will throw an inward block or parry. I was under the assumption in an early chapter, that this was wasted motion. Silly. Next chapter, I developed a crush on the inward/outward parry/block combo as a means of slipping up and past the attacking weapon to get to the bad guy. I threw out the inward parry/upward block as being silly, because the upward block was, to me, for meeting descending attacks...so what was the parry touching?  Then I meet Doc, who shows me that -- against a stright punch -- the inward parry sends one message to the opponents neurology about a direction to shore up against, and the upward block sends a conflicting message, and the combination of the two frags the other guys stability. Now, just using this simple set that's in many forms, you've effectivelt misaligned the bad guy, and further attacks from him will lack the muscle congruency necessary to really make it hurt.

So, in believing I was qualified to start my own mods after 25+ years, I was wrong. I didn't understand all the intricacies and implications of the moves I had thrown out, and was not qualified to make those decisions.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Seig (Jun 29, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Again, how is it determined that someone knows and understands their base art well enough to justify cross training? I think that is an ambiguous determination, something that few people will fully agree on.


Not really, if I'm still correcting your punching technique, your neutral bow, or your horse stance, you are not ready to cross train. There is nothing ambiguous about it. 


> There are many levels of understanding of an art, and where does the magic line lie, once you cross this line it is OK for you to cross train, or begin tailoring or altering the art?


No, there are only three levels of understanding. Once you know your art it is probably ok to start branching out a little to see if you really understand.


> I believe that ultimately it is up to the individual to make this decision for himself.


Unfortunately that's true. That's why the world is full of incredibly stupid people wearing belts that are an embarassment to the rest of the people wearing the same color belt.


> After all, once you learn something, it belongs to you, for you to do with as you wish. It is only knowledge, not a material possession that somebody can take away from you. Ultimately, it needs to be useful for you. Only you can determine if it is.


There is a statement I can agree with, mostly. Only knowledge....ouch....


> Of course everyone would benefit from having a good teacher to guide them to a higher level. BUt that is not always possible for many reasons. It could be location, lack of teachers who you trust or believe they have something to offer, or other obligations in life that limit your ability to train with others so you make due as best as you can on your own.


Sorry, that is a false statement. It is possible, no matter what. My teacher lives on one coast, and I on the other. Guess what, I have a contemporary in Australia! We don't let distance be an excuse, we sought quality instruction and are willing to pay the price to get it. Don't confuse a teacher with a training partner, it can get you severely hurt.


> In these cases, one must be one's own task master,


One should always be their own task master. I don't care how many times a teacher corrects you, if you don't practice it, you're wasting his/her time and yours.





> and that includes making your own decisions about things.


That's called being an adult and has nothing to do with the validity of cross training or "tailoring" an art.


> If you spend your whole life always looking to others to tell you what to do and to legitimize what you do, then you have not really learned anything besides learning how to follow others and not think for yourself.


They call that co-dependency and if that is what someone is really doing, they need more help than a martial arts instructor can give them.


> At some point people need to be able to stand on their own two feet.


 So you think it is beneficial then to send a yellow belt out into the world thinking they have the answers? Again, this goes back to independence versus co-dependency and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


> Of course different people have different abilities and experiences, and this makes some more qualified than others to make these decisions. A complete newbie, with 6 months training is probably much less qualified than the 10, or 20, or 50 year veteran. But where is the line drawn?


Why does there have to be a hard and fast line? I have a brown belt that I think _should_ cross train and a black belt that I think should not. Why should there be a hard and fast rule? I believe there should be guidelines, but not hard and fast determinations.


> How do we decide when one can make a change or begin cross training? It can't necessarily be based on a certain amount of time or rank achieved, because those are no guarantee of ability or knowledge.


Now that is a great statement! :asian:


> It is a tough question to answer, and I don't pretend to have an answer beyond saying that if you have trained hard, done your best to understand things, and haven't found anyone who can help you understand things any better than you do, and you still see problems with some of the material, then you are ready to make some changes.


Starting with either the way you approach the material or the way it is presented to you. Talk to your teacher first.


----------



## Seig (Jun 29, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Michael:
> 
> Excellent point, and unfortunately, we will never have an agreeable yardstick for what constitutes a "good enough" understanding of the art to justify tailoring. I started a tailoring journey, sure I had the experience necessary to warrant it. Since then, I've had to go back to some ideas, and re-think the conclusions I originally drew, ceding their "incorrectness" as I go.
> 
> ...


Hey Dave,
I bet you and the rest of the gang would agree with this, "If you think it's 'Good Enough', take out extra insurance."


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Michael:
> 
> So, in believing I was qualified to start my own mods after 25+ years, I was wrong. I didn't understand all the intricacies and implications of the moves I had thrown out, and was not qualified to make those decisions.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I dunno if you were really wrong.  You did the best that you could based on your understanding, and I really really can't find a lot of fault with that.  You then found someone who could help you understand it better, and that made you re-think what you did, but that doesn't mean it was wasted time.  The exercise was worthwhile, and it probably developed your critical eye in the process.  The point is, you were thinking for yourself and that is something that I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

Had you not found someone who could lead you to a higher level, then I would say you were definitely doing the right thing.  Like I have stated, having a good teacher to lead you is certainly best.  But lacking that, make your own decisions.  Under those circumstances, what you come up with would work better for you than keeping with something that you can't seem to get to work, or that doesn't make sense to you.

Nobody's vision in the martial arts is perfect, certainly not perfect for everyone.  Perhaps some people have a better vision than others, but that doesn't negate the value of what others do.  Who are the really "great" people in the arts is a matter of opinion, and not everyone is in a position, or even has the desire to train with the "greats".  Ultimately we all do our best because that is all we can do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2006)

OK, I still haven't figured out how to properly split up a quote from a previous post, so I'll just *bold* everything from the prior post and comment after.

*Not really, if I'm still correcting your punching technique, your neutral bow, or your horse stance, you are not ready to cross train. There is nothing ambiguous about it. *

Nobody reaches true perfection.  Everyone has room to improve.  By this logic, nobody should ever cross train.  

I agree with your point that when people flutter from one art to another without taking the time and putting in the effort to truly understand the art, they just accumulate a bunch of poorly learned junk.  But there are many different reasons to cross train, all legitimate reasons.  Could simply be personal preference or interest, not necessarily because you feel your original art has holes that need to be filled.  That being said, I have had some "ah-ha" moments while training in Wing Chun, when the lightbulb went on and I realized what I was doing in Wing Chun helped me understand something that I had learned in kenpo.  A certain technique was very similar, but the approach was slightly different and that was all I needed to suddenly grasp the usefulness of it.

*No, there are only three levels of understanding. Once you know your art it is probably ok to start branching out a little to see if you really understand.*

Well, I don't know how you define three levels.  I was thinking more on the line that every day of training can bring you to a new level, subtle and gradual tho it may be.  I don't have a way to measure a specific level except in hindsight, when you realize that you have progressed from where you were 3 years prior, but you didn't realize it while it was happening.

*Unfortunately that's true. That's why the world is full of incredibly stupid people wearing belts that are an embarassment to the rest of the people wearing the same color belt.*

True, a lot of high rank on people who shouldn't wear it.  This is in part the fault of teachers who are too business minded and give out quick rank to keep their client base happy, and also in part to people who give themselves rank because they don't have a teacher to give it to them.  Maybe some of these people actually deserve the rank if it could be measured objectively, but I suspect many do not deserve the rank, even tho they may have solid skills.  Every schmoe with solid skills does not deserve to be a 10th degree, just because they decide they want it.  But not everyone who decides to take an art in their own direction start giving themselves promotions.  Some of us are content with the rank we earned almost 20 years ago, and have no interest in giving ourselves further rank.  Personally, I would never assume additional rank on my own, and would only accept it from a good teacher with whom I trained extensively.

*There is a statement I can agree with, mostly. Only knowledge....ouch....*

I don't mean to downplay the value of knowledge.  My point is just that once given, it cannot be taken away.  One cannot exercise complete control over what others do with knowledge that has been given.  Once knowledge is passed on, there has to be a certain willingness to relinquish control.  This is another reason why I think many commercial schools are a mistake.  This kind of knowledge shouldn't be passed on to just anybody who walks in the door with an open check book.

*Sorry, that is a false statement. It is possible, no matter what. My teacher lives on one coast, and I on the other. Guess what, I have a contemporary in Australia! We don't let distance be an excuse, we sought quality instruction and are willing to pay the price to get it. Don't confuse a teacher with a training partner, it can get you severely hurt.*

I appreciate your dedication to your teacher.  But this is not possible for everyone.  If you can maintain this relationship to train with the teacher you really want to be with, you are one of the lucky ones.

*One should always be their own task master. I don't care how many times a teacher corrects you, if you don't practice it, you're wasting his/her time and yours.That's called being an adult and has nothing to do with the validity of cross training or "tailoring" an art*.

Agreed, if you don't practice on your own you will never progress.  It is being an adult, but I see many people in martial arts schools who do not train on their own, and the structure of the school encourages them to be in class every day for training.  In my opinion, this encourages them to be dependent and they never learn to think or train on their own.  This mentality can last, and, again in my opinion, creates a bunch of emotionally stunted individuals when it comes to their training.  But deciding to tailor or cross train is also being an adult.  Once you are comfortable with your own training, you can become comfortable making these decisions as well.  I am not suggesting that people should try to actively undermine their instructor, if they are still with him.  But I am suggesting that people can reach a level where they can make this decision for themselves, and I don't think they necessarily need to be a 10th dan grand master, or some other rarely achieved level before they do this.  

*So you think it is beneficial then to send a yellow belt out into the world thinking they have the answers?* 

I never ever made such a claim.  In fact, later in my post I suggested that this would be someone with little qualification to do this.

*Why does there have to be a hard and fast line? I have a brown belt that I think should cross train and a black belt that I think should not. Why should there be a hard and fast rule? I believe there should be guidelines, but not hard and fast determinations*_._

This is exactly my position.  Some people are ready surprisingly quickly due to natural talent, intellect, whatever.  Others are never ready no matter how long they train.  there is no fast, hard line.  This is why I think the ultimate decision comes from the individual.  Where else can it come from?  people like Mr. Parker did exactly this, and made that decision for themselves.  Not everyone is on a level with Mr. Parker, I don't pretend to suggest that.  But without the willingness of people to do that, the arts do not grow.  Probably much of what gets developed by the average person is not very good, and it dies with the inventor.  But some things are good and get passed on.  But neither do I believe that someone has to be on the same level as Mr. Parker in order to be willing to do this.  Mr. Parker was not always at the level he achieved by the end of his life.  He began making changes decades before, while his own skill and understanding continued to grow.

*Now that is a great statement!* :asian:

Something we can agree upon!

*Starting with either the way you approach the material or the way it is presented to you. Talk to your teacher first.*

I live halfway across the country from my kenpo teacher.  He has drifted away from the martial arts, and no longer trains.  I keep in touch with him, and I have discussed my changes with him and he is in agreement that the changes were necessary.  He may not agree with every change that I made, but he saw the need for the changes overall and he trusts me to make decisions for myself.  We are neither high ranking nor influential people in kenpo or the martial arts in general.  We are just a couple guys doing what we do the best that we can, and not afraid to make changes that we feel are appropriate.  Again, my point of reference is from Tracys, not EPAK, so none of my comments should be taken as a judgement of the material in the EPAK system.  But I think the idea of being willing to make changes is a common theme that we can still discuss.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 30, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> I've seen the same footage, He was addressing a room full of black belts.
> 
> No, I "assumed" nothing. I responded to exactly what I read, exactly the way I would respond to anyone who was seeking information.
> I occassionally come across harsher than intended, and if that's the case, my apologies.
> ...


 
I have somewhere around a dozen or more tapes of Ed Parker Seminars and on several he says the same things.  How can you be sure you've seen "the same footage" as the one I was talking about without knowing which tapes I have in my possession?  That is an assumption.  And no apologies necessary as no offense was taken.  Just needed to clarify as you seemed to have "mistaken" some discussion points for my viewpoints and others reading may have done the same.

Respect and Salute. :asian:


----------



## Seig (Jun 30, 2006)

James,
I'll tell you what, my instructor comes out to see me twice a year. You're only about 90 minutes away, why don't you come up and talk to us. After talking to us, I'm sure you'll have a much greater understanding of what I am trying to get across in print media.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 30, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> James,
> I'll tell you what, my instructor comes out to see me twice a year. You're only about 90 minutes away, why don't you come up and talk to us. After talking to us, I'm sure you'll have a much greater understanding of what I am trying to get across in print media.


 
Fair Enough, I can make a 90 minute hike/drive and probably crash with my Family in VA.  When? Hopefully it's a weekend.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Again, my point of reference is from Tracys, not EPAK, so none of my comments should be taken as a judgement of the material in the EPAK system. But I think the idea of being willing to make changes is a common theme that we can still discuss.


 
It occurred to me this morning that the differences between EPAK and Tracys might mean that we are really disagreeing on a point of Apples and Oranges.

I haven't studied EPAK, so I am not familiar with the curriculum, other than the general sense that some techniques are still very similar, others are quite different, and the number of techniques is much less in EPAK.  

My main complaint with Tracys curriculum is in this huge and cumbersome number of techniques.  I feel that many of them are poorly designed, unworkable, and have little or no chance of being successful.  They are also needlessly repetitive, in many cases.  This is where I felt a change was needed, to eliminate the techniques that are unreliable or needlessly repetitive, and create a more streamlined curriculum that focuses on the material that is really worthwhile.

It may be that EPAK curriculum has already addressed this issue, given the much shorter list of techniques.  If I was familiar with EPAK curriculum, I may see little or no need to make the changes that I have been making.  If those who are sitting in disagreement with me had a familiarity with Tracys curriculum (assuming that you do not), you might find yourselves in agreement with me.  But I realized we may be arguing needlessly over something because of our differing perspectives.

I like to jump in on these threads, even tho they are more EPAK focused.  I guess I just see our arts as so closely related that there is no reason for me to stay away.  But I have to keep in mind that this can cause some confusion with what is being discussed.

I still feel that under the right circumstances, an individual should feel comfortable making changes.  But the circumstances created by our different arts may create differing necessities with regard to this.

Hope this helps clarify.  thx.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> It occurred to me this morning that the differences between EPAK and Tracys might mean that we are really disagreeing on a point of Apples and Oranges.
> 
> I haven't studied EPAK, so I am not familiar with the curriculum, other than the general sense that some techniques are still very similar, others are quite different, and the number of techniques is much less in EPAK.
> 
> ...


 
Makes sense to me.  But my view may be a little biased as Kenpo is only one of the systems I've devoted considerable time to.  And it's also not the first or the last.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me. But my view may be a little biased as Kenpo is only one of the systems I've devoted considerable time to. And it's also not the first or the last.


 
I am in exactly the same boat.  Kenpo was my first, but I have spent years studying several other arts with other teachers, some of which have an approach to teaching and training that is vastly different, even opposite that of the kenpo I learned.  I guess we cannot help but be influenced by this.  

I have drifted from kenpo, sometimes for years at a time, while training other arts but I always seem to come back to it at some point.  Then I look at it with a different perspective based on new experiences and I look for ways to make it work better for me.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 30, 2006)

In my opinion, I don't believe that Ed Parker intended people to change the core of the system when he encouraged them expand and innovate. I believe that he was refering to person's personal way of doing Kenpo, not what they were to teach their students. Sooner or later, with all of the innovation and change, EPAK will no longer be EPAK. I doubt that it was his intention to evolve his system until it became extinct.

But, then again, who knows.


----------



## Doc (Jun 30, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> In my opinion, I don't believe that Ed Parker intended people to change the core of the system when he encouraged them expand and innovate. I believe that he was refering to person's personal way of doing Kenpo, not what they were to teach their students. Sooner or later, with all of the innovation and change, EPAK will no longer be EPAK. I doubt that it was his intention to evolve his system until it became extinct.
> 
> But, then again, who knows.


You are correct, but include the disclaimer that your statements refers to the commercial system built on motion and personal interpretation as it's core tenant. Other interpretations were NOT encouraged to change, rearrange, etc without his expressed permission.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 30, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You are correct, but include the disclaimer that your statements refers to the commercial system built on motion and personal interpretation as it's core tenant. Other interpretations were NOT encouraged to change, rearrange, etc without his expressed permission.


 
Thanks,

I'll try to remember that in the future. 

Dave


----------

