# New Kenpo Article



## Steve Howard (Apr 19, 2003)

http://kenporaw.bravepages.com/Paper2.htm


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 19, 2003)

A good article with the exception of a few minor aspects.  I have been saying much of this for years.  Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me). 

good work

:asian:


----------



## brianhunter (Apr 20, 2003)

Good article, I enjoyed reading it. Nice to know how what you are doing comes about from time to time. I kept thinking about the movie Shrek and how he said "Ogres are like onions" while reading it thought 
Good read though! Nice to see guys breaking it down for the masses!


----------



## jeffkyle (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *A good article with the exception of a few minor aspects.  I have been saying much of this for years.  Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me).
> 
> good work
> ...



I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?!?!?!?


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _*
> I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?!?!?!? *





> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _*
> I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?
> *



Ok, here is the original post............



> _Origin. posted by GoldenDragon7_*
> "Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me)".
> *



Let's examine the article, and I'll give my personal takes - opinions on each section............



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Is Your Kenpo Real? (Part II)
> By Stephen D. Howard:
> Chinese Kenpo (A.k.a. Tracys, Tracys Variants, numerous pre-1980s Parker curriculums) vs. American Kenpo (A.k.a. AK,
> ...



Ok Pre-1980's Tracy Kenpo vs. Pre-Dec,15, 1990, Ed Parker's American Kenpo.

Yes, this debate has existed for around 25 years since the Tracy's broke away from Ed Parker.  This however should be expected in virtually any unhappy split (look at most divorces) lol, just a fact of life.  Ugly, yes, unnecessary... I would disagree since the truth of the matter at the time  (during the early era of the split), was not understood by the masses and very confusing.  But I do agree that any difficult battle or split doesn't do anyone any good during or near the beginning, until the big picture is seen and the reasoning from both sides comes out.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Thankfully, in recent years, senior practitioners on both sides of the issue have started to set aside their personal differences to work toward
> the overall advancement of the art.  Occasions such as GOE I and GOE II and similar events have
> gone a long way in beginning to mend the rift that
> ...



Agreed, time to move on and heal.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> It is now time for those of us who are juniors in
> the Kenpo community to continue what the seniors
> have started and end the feud that has only served to weaken our status as Americas premier martial art!
> *



Amen.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> To that end, this article will examine the REAL
> differences between the two major divisions of Mr.
> Parkers art.  It will also investigate the
> ...



Ok, here I would say that Since Ed Parker was the original Teacher to the Tracy Brothers, and they broke away..... They (Tracy's) are the "sub-system", NOT Ed Parker.  Ed Parker was the CORE SYSTEM (even though he evolved and rearranged it several times), that was broken away from.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> The statement: Chinese and American Kenpo "ARE" different arts, is probably the single-most misleading statement ever uttered by any member of our system!
> 
> Why?  Because it has been misinterpreted and
> ...



Absolutely, see prior paragraph.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> To truly understand this, one must first realize
> from where Mr. Parker drew his inspiration and his
> genius.  First, he drew from the wisdom of those
> ...



It is good to note that as the "Onion" was slowly peeled away, this took time, months and even years which as we now look back on now, we notice certain "eras of development" and within those "eras" we find different individuals that had access only to that information that was current. 

Many of the early instructors (for one reason or another) broke away and took with them "their" understanding of the material and many started studios and organizations with this knowledge.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Regardless of which incarnation of the art was
> being taught, the major wellspring of Mr. Parkers
> Kenpo was the original techniques.  All of the
> ...



I think this minimizes a little too much the statement that "All" (with the exception of 1 or 2 exceptions) of the principles and concepts were present.  I agree that they indeed "WERE PRESENT" but if not defined, explained and brought to 
everyone's attention, then for all practical purposes they didn't exist to us consciously.  As the Art evolved these WERE found, put into print and expanded upon through seminars or manuals to the current students (mostly in the 80's), but much of this
 'latest" material was not easily available for those of earlier 
eras that had left Ed Parker or only saw him rarely.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> If Chinese and American Kenpo truly operated on
> different principles and theories, then it would
> be logical to assume that those differences would
> ...



I would add, that at this point of his life, he realized that "An ounce of Logic was worth a Pound of Tradition".  Yes, there was traditions in his past (and he maintained several we still use), however, he also was a progressive thinker and a true analyzer.  As these insights came to light, the decisions to make adjustments to methodology and curriculums was needed..... so to modernize and actually create better curriculums vs. pound on trees and thrust your hands in sand, he took a more intelligent avenue towards the Art, thus what we now come to know as revolutionary change from the norm of that time/era (Kenpo as it relates to modern times is the key, like old medicine that has lost effectiveness thru time, or realizing that new thoughts / technology has now produced "new medicines" that are now much more potent than the prior versions or prescriptions).  As the new (at that time) business potential was realized .... once again, adjustments through trial and error were established.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> So why did he see a need to change?  Two reasons: competition and a desire to cut the learning curve.  His primary competition would come in the form of the Tracy brothers (on the traditional / classical side) and Bruce Lee (on the modern / conceptual side).
> 
> First of all, whether you like the Tracy's or you
> ...



No argument there, they "were" the main ones that initially spread the "Kenpo" "name and version they knew from their era" across the globe with both speed and numbers.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Both Mr. Parker and the Tracy's were making their
> respective livings teaching Kenpo full-time and
> competing for the same pool of students.  No one,
> ...



Once again, this is right on. Clearly, Ed Parker was more focused on the Kenpo System itself rather than the marketing of it (this is one main difference between camps).  Not to say that he didn't want several studios or a large following, but his focus was always on the product or his System first.  His marketing also became focused on "big names" such as Elvis, and a host of Hollywood Stars, which would in his opinion give great testimony and credibility to American Kenpo and his methods.  He believed that the mass numbers would follow with this solid groundwork in place.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Enter Bruce Lee.  Bruce Lee disregarded
> traditional training methods and ideology.  He
> rejected pre-arranged techniques and kata.  He
> ...



Remember that Ed Parker knew Bruce Lee before the public and it was Ed Parker that offered the vehicle to Lee to showcase his ideas at the Long Beach Internationals.  Bruce Lee NEVER had many students.  His attitude and rebel-like views were similar to Ed Parker's and the two exchanged view for many hours (especially when Lee actually lived with Parker for several months).   When Lee got his intro into Hollywood, he was able to expand his ideas but still never had a great following until after his death when several students organized and carried on his works.  His biggest accomplishment was not for Bruce Lee, but rather ALL the martial arts.  Lee brought name recognition to the Chinese Arts and the Karate Studios everywhere started pulling in people across the country and world.  Of course, Ed Parker was positioned to benefit as well, and did, but it was not intentional.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Part I of this article pointed out that Mr. Parker
> was both a product of his times, and a man very
> much ahead of his time.  In no instance is this
> ...



Yes, the "fast food"  martial Art era was soon to hit, but not necessarily due to Bruce Lee's new training attitude, the "Korean Invasion" in the Mid 70's, had much more to do with the quick rank, less time, belt ranking system than Lee.   All these factors had a hand in the evolving of American Martial Arts.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Now, Mr. Parker faced a real dilemma.  He had
> spent years building his legitimacy and
> credibility in the traditional martial arts
> ...



Yes, now that business was doing extremely well, and with plenty of feedback from all over the county from instructors with studios flocking to join his I.K.K.A., he was constantly aware of the "challenges" presented from all these studios instructors and was able to "brainstorm" with a wide variety of instructors who constantly expressed desires and solutions to various issues such as promotion times, curriculum size and structure, quality control, standardization, marketing, phone responses, etc., etc..  These were more of the real threats that needed immediate attention, not so much the sparse JKD studios.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> To accomplish this goal, Mr. Parker would create a
> hybrid philosophy and design a unique curriculum
> that took advantage of the strengths of both
> ...



Yes, a need to spread out the material base wider than from white belt to green belt was a wise business necessity.  It lowered the training time a bit at the lower ranks for some and offered more "time" to engrain basics and skills yet still be able to move the student along thru the system at a good pace.  These changes took months to years to implement due to his busy and demanding seminar schedule.  Ever increasing were the calls to have seminars with the Founder of the Kenpo System.  This was a love / hate relationship.  The exposure was awesome yet it hampered some of his projects and was physically and mentally hard on him and his family.  Regardless, he knew his calling.  Eventually, he would ask a few of us to go with him on some trips in which we spent a lot of time discussing current projects or ideas to help everyone in the system.  Out of several of these "trips" were born some of the new additions to the system that are still in place today (such as the dimensional stages of action).



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> So, the biggest difference in the two major
> subdivisions of the art is in the sheer number of
> techniques (or, more correctly, variations upon
> ...



I would like to point out again, that I don't believe there are 2 subdivisions but rather one (Tracy's).   I additionally don't  feel that the sheer number of techniques is the main issue.  Both systems, have numerous possibilities, Tracy's does have more "written" curriculum (around 600 or so Self Defense Techniques), during that era, Ed Parker made it a point to show how easy it was to alter techniques in many ways and still have a viable move (example: 2 + 2 = 4 or 3 + 1 = 4 or 12 divided by 3 = 4) as stated, where as American Kenpo moved on to teach the "equation formula" along with the base system (which has close to 154 Self Defense Techniques) then later (in the 80's) developed the "Master Keys" and the "3 Phase Concept" of the System which still allow for unlimited "variable expansions" yet not in the base written curriculum.  As stated the numerous (600 +) written syllabus (Tracy) does make for more memorized practice for promotion where as the American Kenpo Base is less but has a strong "suggested" possibilities path to follow.  The real difference however really lies in the individual instructor in how he "TRAINS" his students.  I may have less required in numbers but may actually practice twice as many repetitions and expansions as those that need to memorize over 600.  So it is a difference of perspective and training methods that separate some.  Both have value, both have reasoning, I personally have learned both and prefer the AK method, and have had much success with my students, but each to his own.  They both "CAN" work, if applied well.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 2) Primary transmission of information is through
> direct physical experience with the techniques.
> If one is trying to achieve physical proficiency
> ...



Great Point Mr. Howard!!!   I Absolutely agree,  repeat, repeat, repeat..... "Practice makes [Permanent] (NOT Perfect as some of you have answered!), yet continual practice while paying close attention to details, makes for Improvement"!!



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 3) Primary responsibility for discovery rests upon
> the student.  In order to achieve higher levels
> of proficiency and expression in the art, the
> ...



While I agree with you in part here, I also feel that a great instructor also shares part responsibility yet leads the student to the well for the water, he can't, nor should he MAKE them drink but to lead, is honorable and responsible.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 1) Number of Techniques.  The larger number of
> techniques in the traditional training model can
> lead to confusion for many students.  The
> ...



Yes, I use to hear and even observe the problem of which you speak.  Too many techniques to "memorize", they would say, followed closely by "Only because they need to extend the students contract to make money".  I used to hate hearing that.  I was none the less an obstacle to overcome.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 2) Primary transmission of information is through
> physical practice of the techniques.  While this
> method of training can produce great fighters,
> ...



Bingo, now we get to the question of Belt Rank.  To be proficient in Self Defense does one have to have a Black Belt or can this occur at a much lower level?  What really does the Black Belt stand for.... a symbol of a warrior or a teacher or something else?
If one achieves much personal gain in the form of self confidence in him/her self, developed a greater sense of humility, discipline in life, developed a more focused or goal oriented perspective, a new outlook towards his fellow man, are not these all claims of the many benefits that we offer through training the martial arts?   "

The person who knows how will always be a student, but the person who knows why, will continue to be the instructor".



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 1) Number of Techniques.  The smaller number of
> techniques in the conceptual training model helps
> eliminate a possible source of confusion.  Also,
> ...



A good example with the emphasis s placed heavily on the quality of a great instructor, but always the student is responsible for their actions and destiny as well (if they don't practice what they have been shown enough then it wouldn't matter "who" teaches them, they will never be any good.).  We all pay for excellent training at the studios..... don't we (almost everywhere I go, all I see is "the best", "all American", super master so and so, awesome teacher XXX, Great Grandmaster what's his face, etc., etc.)



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 1) Number of Techniques.   The smaller number of
> techniques used in the conceptual model means that
> fewer scenarios/variables are directly addressed.
> ...



Fortunately the system allows for personal investigation of the "what if" phase.   I mean after you are Black Belt for a few years, what else do you have to do for the rest of your life.  Kenpo offers a "Lifetime of study" - Yet for the student that only studies for a few months or years, the system also allows for great progress for time committed.  The more the commitment, the more the advancement.  All depends on you.  Wow, what a System!   No Deposit, No Return.  Constant deposit,......... continual return.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 2) Teaching the Why along with the How.
> Mostly, this is a good thing.  However, what must
> be understood is that, because Kenpo is
> ...



Can't fault that statement either!  No Pain...... er.... I mean..... Train, No Gain.  Some will, some won't....... but ALL CAN!
There ain't no easy way, One must chop wood and carry water!



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> 3) Giving the Student too Much Knowledge.  The
> danger here is the same as not giving the student
> enough knowledge.  The student never reaches
> ...



I read what you said, but the gist is....... "The "fist" of the Warrior, AND the "book" of the Scholar", which means - bottom line is you MUST have "both" Physical and Mental commitment to be ideal.



> _Article by Stephen D.Howard_*
> Whichever training method you are involved with,
> practice it honestly and earnestly and you are
> already halfway to ensuring that your Kenpo will
> ...



Agreed

:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 22, 2003)

Steve, you have to start writing shorter articles........LOL  that is the longest one on record!!   WOW


:asian:


----------



## jeffkyle (Apr 22, 2003)

But you are right!  That is Looooooooooong!  You almost have to read it in phases as to not lose concentration!  LOL!


----------



## gman (Apr 22, 2003)

Nice article. Post more if you get 'em. I love reading about the history and evolution stuff.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 22, 2003)

here's one of my favorites .. not kenpo history though 

http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/blackbelt/1999/feb99/fig.html


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _*
> Could you elaborate a bit more, Please?
> *



Did that help you ....... Jeff?


----------



## Ninja D (Apr 22, 2003)

I'm sure most of you found this, but if not, check it out:


http://kenporaw.bravepages.com/Paper1.htm


----------



## Steve Howard (Apr 22, 2003)

I wanted to thank Mr. Connaster for his opinions and insights on my recent article.  As always, he has pointed out other aspects for my own consideration and benefit as well as illuminating some of the points I was trying to make.  Please read his commentary on the article as it makes several valid rebuttals and confirmations and clarifies many things that, for the sake of "brevity" (OK, ok--stop laughing...LOL) I wasn't able to do on my own.

Thanks again.

salute,
Steve Howard


----------



## jeffkyle (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Did that help you ....... Jeff?
> 
> *



Yes!  That helped tremendously!  Thanks again!


----------



## KenpoDave (Apr 23, 2003)

Mr. Conatser, not to beat a dead horse, but when Mr. Howard refers to Tracy's and Parker's as "subsystems" I think he is referring to them both being subsystems of kenpo.  I did not understand him to mean that American Kenpo was a subsystem of Mr. Parker's original teachings.


----------



## Steve Howard (Apr 24, 2003)

Thanks, KenpoDave--that was indeed the premise from which I was working.  The major point was that when selecting a curriculum one must be aware of the differences in how that curriculum organizes and presents information (compared to any other curriculum) so as to reap the full benefit from that curriculum.  For the sake of space and simplicity I referred to "Chinese" and "American" as subsystems only because most of the different curriculum with which I have had experience are variations on these two major learning models.  It wasn't meant to imply that one was necessarily a subsytem of the other, but that they were the two major classifications (subsystems) within the art as a whole.

Thanks,
Steve Howard


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KenpoDave _*
> When Mr. Howard refers to Tracy's and Parker's as "subsystems" I think he is referring to them both being subsystems of kenpo.
> *



Yes, that is what I believe he was stating as well.  I do not share that opinion, Tracy's is a subsystem of Ed Parker's.



> _Originally posted by KenpoDave _*
> I did not understand him to mean that American Kenpo was a subsystem of Mr. Parker's original teachings.
> *



No, I don't think he was trying to say that either,  I "WAS".   Ed Parker has always stated that he was given the "keys" to unlock the doors.  That is exactly what he did.  Ed Parker developed (from his root training what is known to us today as Kenpo) this material was not Chow's strict curriculum (other than the "keys" which were basics and foundational material & ideas).  Ed Parker the one that formulated the system that we ALL know today ....... NO ONE ELSE, the Tracy's did in fact break away to expand on their own and do their own version of this .  

That is not to say that there were many people that did have influence on Ed Parker however, if you look at the two systems, the mode of movement, technique sequence ideas, principles and many other aspects were formulated by Ed Parker.   You don't have to look far to see familiar names such as any of the forms from short & long form's 1 - 5 just to name one example.  These were not used by Chow or anyone else but Parker lineage.

So the Tracy system is definitely a sub-product of Ed Parker philosophy and influence (After all, Who was it that promoted the Tracy's anyway) with Tracy modifications and expansions from the time they broke away to date.  American Kenpo was just a name change in the 80's to bring more focus specifically to Ed Parker's one and only evolving system, it was the compilation of his experiences under a modernized heading.

:asian:


----------



## lonekimono (Apr 24, 2003)

Hey Dennis like you said EVERONE has something to say about this, 25 years? and it's still going on.

 you know what i don't care, because no one will ever be on the same page, so i just turn the page ( not jimmy page) LZ.
so on we go . this gives me a headache
:rofl: 

  yours in kenpo


----------

