# EPAK and weapons training



## Epa (Nov 22, 2005)

Hi, 

I'm not a kenpo student and have never actually trained in Kenpo before. I've been browsing this forum and I've come across several references to weapons work in Kenpo, but I can't quite figure out if it's focused on self defense against weapons or training with weapons. Did Ed Parker originally teach weapons or just empty hands defense against weapons? 

I know that some Kenpo players are adding new (not Ed Parker's) weapons work to their curricula. Who are some of these people and what do they teach? I'm interested in the weapons training because I primarily train Filipino Martial Arts. So if anyone could make analogies to that it would be helpful. 

Thanks, 
Eric


----------



## MJS (Nov 23, 2005)

Epa said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I'm not a kenpo student and have never actually trained in Kenpo before. I've been browsing this forum and I've come across several references to weapons work in Kenpo, but I can't quite figure out if it's focused on self defense against weapons or training with weapons. Did Ed Parker originally teach weapons or just empty hands defense against weapons?
> 
> ...


 
First off, Welcome to the forum!  Enjoy your stay!:ultracool 

Form 6 and 7 address weapons.  Kenpo has some great weapon defense techniques.  I too, train in the FMA's, so I often find myself cross referencing the two.

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Nov 23, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> First off, Welcome to the forum! Enjoy your stay!:ultracool
> 
> Form 6 and 7 address weapons. Kenpo has some great weapon defense techniques. I too, train in the FMA's, so I often find myself cross referencing the two.
> 
> Mike


 

Now now Mike, let's not forget Form 8 which is double knife set, silly boy LOL.

DarK LorD


----------



## MJS (Nov 23, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Now now Mike, let's not forget Form 8 which is double knife set, silly boy LOL.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
Duh..:whip:  LOL, thanks for the reminder dude!!  See what happens when you post early in the AM!!

Mike


----------



## Doc (Nov 25, 2005)

Epa said:
			
		

> Hi,
> ... I can't quite figure out if it's focused on self defense against weapons or training with weapons. Did Ed Parker originally teach weapons or just empty hands defense against weapons?
> Eric


Mr. Parker did not believe in "weapons training" for his modern self-defense art in America. He felt it was a product of a different time and culture that saw the carrying of weapons as the "norm" and not the exeption. His focus was on defending against modern street weapons in America, not in using them. Originally the only weapon was the "staff." 

Later on he created weapons forms simply because students asked for them to compete with in tournaments when "Weapns Forms" became popular. Mr. Parker firmly believed a person who was training in specific weapons would not learn good body mechanics, and rely on the weapon to be effective. 

However, if the student trained properly than he would be the weapon because of his superior mechanics, and anything he touched would be an effective weapon. He often remarked that Jackie Chan in some of his movies illustrated that very point.

Mr. Parker never wrote any specific applications for any weapon, although he often spoke conceptually of how they might be utilized under some circumstances. Form 7/Club Set ended up just being a series of already existing techniques with "sticks" added.


----------



## Seabrook (Nov 25, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker did not believe in "weapons training" for his modern self-defense art in America. He felt it was a product of a different time and culture that saw the carrying of weapons as the "norm" and not the exeption. His focus was on defending against modern street weapons in America, not in using them. Originally the only weapon was the "staff."


 
Well put Doc.

Under curiosity,how would you respond to these two statements that always pop up from time to time:

(1) one of the best ways to learn how to defend against a particular weapon (ie. knife, club) is to learn how to use it yourself.

(2) some organizations (ie AKKI) feel it necessary to have an established weapons curriculum, instead of just relying on empty hand self defenses against weapons. 


Thanks in advance for your insight.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> one of the best ways to learn how to defend against a particular weapon (ie. knife, club) is to learn how to use it yourself.



This is surely true to an extent But in the FMA we find that one danger of this approach is that people tend to look for expert-level attacks on the street--they "over-think" it. It's a mixed bag, but I personally believe that one should have some level of familiarity with the offensive use of the weapon in order to know ho wto defend against it.


----------



## Doc (Nov 25, 2005)

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Well put Doc.
> 
> Under curiosity,how would you respond to these two statements that always pop up from time to time:
> 
> ...


For many sir, the lines between martial training for practicality, and for art/fun are blurred. Artistically the study of weapons can be a fascinating pursuit where practitioners play out fantasies of defending themselves against ninja warriors, and experts in blade arts ad nausea. This for those in some of the Ed Parker Lineage is very much contrary to his teachings.

The absence of any significant writing on the application of any weapons should be a major clue to his feelings on the subject. Either Parker didnt feel it was needed in the general curriculum, or he was keeping it a secret, or perhaps he planned to introduce it later. The truth is somewhat ambiguous in that he felt differently at different times albeit for different reasons, none related to self-defense applications. 

In the beginning, he believed weapons training in America were unnecessary, with the exception of self-defense techniques for the occasional weapons based assault. This is documented historically in what he taught when he first arrived on the mainland, bringing the Chow influenced perspective which too, was also devoid of weapons.

As time went on and tournament competition grew, students found the traditionalist dominating the newly formed weapons kata divisions, and kenpo stylists experiencing increasing frustration also from being forced to compete in either hard or soft divisions, fitting in neither there as well.

These complaints reached Parker who instituted the medium (or Kenpo/Kajukenbo) division between the hard and soft forms divisions at his International Karate Championships, with other tournament promoters across the country following suit of the progenitor tournament promoter. After all, Kenpo stylists considered this their tournament. 

When similar complaints regarding weapons reached Mr. Parker, he responded by starting work on a series of club sets. I watched him work on holding the weapons in various configurations in either and both hands and took notes. The Knife Set was already in existence at this time as Parker experimented with what he felt was the only modern street weapon other than a firearm. I was given the terminology and a brief demonstration of the terms, and told to  dont worry about it cause you wont need it.

Ultimately Parker decided against the general dissemination of any of this information and produced no writings on either subject. The only written work on weapons is Mr. Parkers rare Nunchaku Book. This was produced during the Bruce Lee Kung Fu movie craze where he (Lee), introduced the weapon to the public and Parker using his good business sense, responded once again to the pressure of the students and created an almost lost Nunchaku Set. By the time the book was finished many states, including California where we lived, had made mere possession of them, a felony.

From a practical standpoint, Parker knew weapons training did not fit his philosophy for his Evolving American Kenpo (sans karate), but it was very lucrative and fit well his Ed Parker Kenpo Karate business model with its many extensions, and multiple versions of each set and ever more complex forms based on motion.

As a side note Form 6 is a weapons disarm form, but Mr. Parker never generally taught any of the principles that would make the form functional on any level. I myself commented on the first move that had your hand sliding under the blade to get to the other side for a seize.

When we began research work on weapons attacks, he surmised that although there is a small amount of validity in the study the weapon to understand how to defend against it school of thought, it simply didnt apply to his philosophy and the statistics bare him out.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics over the years has been very telling. Bludgeon assaults are not the stick type attacks associated with martial weapons, but instead are usually much heavier and unwieldy objects of various shapes, from ashtrays, Coke bottle, to wood 2X4s. So much so that in SL-4 we were obliged to define a storm as a bludgeon rather than a light easily dexterous stick, which changes the dynamics of defense tremendously as Mr. Parker noted.

As for blade attacks, other than the movie overhead stab variety, other assaults of bladed weapons were statistically non-existent. Mr. Parker was right, but confused students by giving them what they asked for, leading them to surmise it had significant validity, and occupied a place in his personal philosophy. They didnt.

Those who choose the artistic path are following a personal philosophy that they feel has validity. There is nothing wrong with that. For My Parker Lineage however, we have so much to learn in proper body mechanics, the idea of adding truly non-essential weapons without the proper foundation makes no sense. That, coupled with the unlikely attack by a hooded ninja at the supermarket, make this path impractical for the law enforcement, and professional students we attract.

As a 30-year street law enforcement agent/officer/deputy, Ive been attacked once by a knife and never by a stick. Who would have thunk it!


----------



## Doc (Nov 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This is surely true to an extent But in the FMA we find that one danger of this approach is that people tend to look for expert-level attacks on the street--they "over-think" it. It's a mixed bag, but I personally believe that one should have some level of familiarity with the offensive use of the weapon in order to know ho wto defend against it.


I agree sir.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 26, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> For many sir, the lines between martial training for practicality, and for art/fun are blurred. Artistically the study of weapons can be a fascinating pursuit where practitioners play out fantasies of defending themselves against &#8220;ninja warriors,&#8221; and experts in blade arts ad nausea. This for those in some of the Ed Parker Lineage is very much contrary to his teachings.
> 
> The absence of any significant writing on the application of any weapons should be a major clue to his feelings on the subject. Either Parker didn&#8217;t feel it was needed in the general curriculum, or he was keeping it a secret, or perhaps he planned to introduce it later. The truth is somewhat ambiguous in that he felt differently at different times albeit for different reasons, none related to self-defense applications.
> 
> In the beginning, he believed weapons training in America were unnecessary, with the exception of self-defense techniques for the occasional weapons based assault. This is documented historically in what he taught when he first arrived on the mainland, bringing the Chow influenced perspective which too, was also devoid of weapons.


 
Thanks for a very knowledgeable and informative post, Doc. I feel much the same way about "patching" weapons onto unrelated arts. An unaffilliated kenpo school that I studied at, briefly, many years ago, added some very SLOPPILY done and taught "arnis" sets to the curriculum. When I finally saw the real thing, I, uh, never mind... :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum:


----------



## Doc (Nov 26, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Thanks for a very knowledgeable and informative post, Doc. I feel much the same way about "patching" weapons onto unrelated arts. An unaffilliated kenpo school that I studied at, briefly, many years ago, added some very SLOPPILY done and taught "arnis" sets to the curriculum. When I finally saw the real thing, I, uh, never mind... :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum:


I know what you mean. Everyone seems to be "adding" something to "something." Maybe they should just "learn something."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Nov 26, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> I know what you mean. Everyone seems to be "adding" something to "something." Maybe they should just "learn something."


 
Are you suggesting folks actually learn? Bah! Ignorance is bliss, and I'm following Joseph Campbell's advice by following my bliss. My ignorance and I have spent many years together, and are great friends. I watch out for my boy, Iggy, and he avoids watching out for me; continues to let me think I know what I'm doing, even after I get hurt doing it. Great setup. Why mess with perfection?

Regards,

Dave.


----------



## Seabrook (Nov 28, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> For many sir, the lines between martial training for practicality, and for art/fun are blurred. Artistically the study of weapons can be a fascinating pursuit where practitioners play out fantasies of defending themselves against ninja warriors, and experts in blade arts ad nausea. This for those in some of the Ed Parker Lineage is very much contrary to his teachings.
> 
> The absence of any significant writing on the application of any weapons should be a major clue to his feelings on the subject. Either Parker didnt feel it was needed in the general curriculum, or he was keeping it a secret, or perhaps he planned to introduce it later. The truth is somewhat ambiguous in that he felt differently at different times albeit for different reasons, none related to self-defense applications.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for sharing all of that Doc. I really appreciate it.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Epa (Nov 28, 2005)

Doc, 

Thanks for the detailed post. It laid everything quite clearly. There was one thing that I'm not sure I understood completely. In your first post, you mentioned that Mr. Parker believed that someone who trained with a specific weapon would not develop good body mechanics and would become reliant on the weapon. I don't see how training with a weapon would not allow you to develop good body mechanics, at the very least with that one weapon. Does this critique also apply to styles that train with a variety of weapons as well as empty hands? Personally, I'm not sure how it could because if someone trained with multiple weapons as well as empty hands then it seems that it could only broaden their understanding of body mechanics. If you could clarify this statement, I'd appreciate it. 

Just to make sure I understand. Form 6, 7 and 8 all deal with weapons. 
Form 6 is a weapon disarming form. 
Form 7 is a club set (?)
Form 8 is a double knife set

Thanks for all the help, 
Eric


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

I know a JKD instructor who teaches the stick principally because it develops, in his opinion, good body mechanics. One learns to get the body behind the stick, which translates to, say, an improved left cross. Others have said the same aboutthe knife--that it teaches "bladed motion" that improves one's empty-handed work.

On the other hand, I know it's not uncommon for Karateka, say, to delay teaching weapons for fear they'd interfere with the development of appropriate body mechanics.

I suppose it depends on what type of body mechanics one is looking for!


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I know a JKD instructor who teaches the stick principally because it develops, in his opinion, good body mechanics. One learns to get the body behind the stick, which translates to, say, an improved left cross. Others have said the same aboutthe knife--that it teaches "bladed motion" that improves one's empty-handed work.
> 
> On the other hand, I know it's not uncommon for Karateka, say, to delay teaching weapons for fear they'd interfere with the development of appropriate body mechanics.
> 
> I suppose it depends on what type of body mechanics one is looking for!


 
Interesting point.   In Tibetan White Crane, we use a full-body pivot when throwing our hand techniques, as a way of increasing the whipping power.  When using the Chinese Broadsword, we use a similar body pivot when delivering the slashing cuts.  Using the pivot helps to generate power while being able to relax the arm and shoulder.  This is true both in throwing a hand technique as well as delivering a slash with a broadsword.  In this way, practice with the weapon helps develop the basic techniques of the empty-hand system.  But, in order to be able to learn the broadsword, one needs to have developed the basics of the system first.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

That's exactly the kind of thing I mean, yes. In JKD the weapons usually come out fairly early because of the Kali influence.


----------



## Doc (Nov 28, 2005)

> Doc,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed post. It laid everything quite clearly. There was one thing that I'm not sure I understood completely. In your first post, you mentioned that Mr. Parker believed that someone who trained with a specific weapon would not develop good body mechanics and would become reliant on the weapon.


That is correct.


> I don't see how training with a weapon would not allow you to develop good body mechanics, at the very least with that one weapon.


I think that was his point. You may learn to move well with the weapon, but at the expense of the proper underlining body mechanics associated with his perspective.


> Does this critique also apply to styles that train with a variety of weapons as well as empty hands?


That would depend upon many factors, but essentially yes. Most arts that train extensively in weapons usually focus a significant amount time in their curriculum to them.


> Personally, I'm not sure how it could because if someone trained with multiple weapons as well as empty hands then it seems that it could only broaden their understanding of body mechanics.


Actually, it has the reverse effect. You may broaden certain skills with a variety of weapons but not the body mechanics the human body relies on in day-to-day activity. It is difficult to see without specific knowledge of the dynamics of physical interaction and body mechanics. Today, schools that utilize weapons start teaching them early in a students training. If this is going to be done, it should take years before starting that kind of training. 

The establishment of proper body mechanics takes time and proper empty-handed repetition. Culturally some arts are more based on weapons then they are empty hand, and actually train in reverse, weapons first empty hand second, and make it difficult to achieve a level of biomechanical efficiency empty handed. Most are unaware that the simple act of seizing with your hand alters your bodys structure tremendously and affects, through the autonomic nervous system, the configuration of muscle, bone, and soft tissue positions, as well as positive and negative access to nerve cavities.

I am not suggesting skill cannot be developed, however without the proper empty-handed training the body will not develop empty hand mechanics associated with empty hand chi, as well as the body defense mechanisms associated with closing down nerve cavities when involved in certain physical movements. Keep in mind for martial activities, major sensors in P.N.F. are from the wrist to the fingertips, etc.


> Just to make sure I understand. Form 6, 7 and 8 all deal with weapons.
> Form 6 is a weapon disarming form.
> Form 7 is a club set (?)
> Form 8 is a double knife set


Form 6 is a weapons disarm form, but Mr. Parker (in general) didnt teach the body mechanics and mechanisms necessary to make it street functional, because it is a competition form like all forms from partial Long Three up.

Form 7 initially was actually a series of sets but was de-evolved to pre-existing techniques with sticks contrary to Mr. Parkers personal philosophy, to satisfy students urgency to have a club form for competition. It is actually a stick form not a club form.

Form 8 was a set Parker created to examine knife concepts and ideas that were ultimately shelved, with only a few actually being taught. The Knife Set was originally taught after Form 6, but with the demand for a club set and its insertion, Club Set became Form 7 and Knife Set was moved and renamed "Form 8."


----------



## Doc (Nov 28, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Interesting point.   In Tibetan White Crane, we use a full-body pivot when throwing our hand techniques, as a way of increasing the whipping power.  When using the Chinese Broadsword, we use a similar body pivot when delivering the slashing cuts.  Using the pivot helps to generate power while being able to relax the arm and shoulder.  This is true both in throwing a hand technique as well as delivering a slash with a broadsword.  In this way, practice with the weapon helps develop the basic techniques of the empty-hand system.  But, in order to be able to learn the broadsword, one needs to have developed the basics of the system first.


Exactly sir.


----------



## Doc (Nov 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's exactly the kind of thing I mean, yes. In JKD the weapons usually come out fairly early because of the Kali influence.


I feel we are essentially in agreement sir.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

I think so. You make a very good point that the act of grasping the weapon changes things further down the (body's) line than people realize. I think if empty-hand expertise is what one is training for, then training with hands empty is the way to go. Arnis takes the point of view--coming from the Philippines' traditionally knife-friendly society--that one might have to fight empty-handed, or with a knife, or with a stick, or with a sword, or...and aims to develop a good level of proficiency across these possibilities ("It's all the same"). Of course, one risks losing the smaller tweaks that make for greater expertise in just one of these areas. (We often argue this point as stick vs. sword in the FMA; what is lost in training with the stick but thinking of it as a sword?) It's a question of what one's training goals are.

I can easily see both sides of this. Apart from those in certain occupations, if one is attacked then one is likely unarmed--both because most people usually are, and because if one is obviously carrying or in proximity to something dangerous, why would the attacker choose an armed victim? Many people who do carry knives say they don't have time to deploy one when attacked and end up defending empty handed anyways; things just happen too quickly and empty-hand reflexes are what come into play. Others say that your odds of successfully defending against a weapon (or multiple opponent) attack are already low and so spending a lot of time on that may not be rewarded proportionately. (I hear this commonly from BJJ players.) For all these reasons and more, focusing on empty-hand makes sense.

On the other side of the coin, one might have a weapon or find a makeshift one, or take one away from one opponent in a multiple-attacker scenario. If one is attacked by a knife-wielder, say, it would be helpful to understand the weapon's capabilities. Some people feel that training with weapons increases strength or helps channel a certain type of energy--I hear both of these arguments for the Kung Fu/Tai Chi weapons such as the spear--or develops certain other attributes such as good body mechanics for getting one's weight behind a technique, as is argued in JKD. For all these reasons and more, including weapons training makes sense.

I see it as a design issue. When the founder of an art designs that martial art, he or she has a strategy in mind and an array of scenarios in mind. If sword attacks are seen as a possibility, one designs the art a certain way; if multiple opponent attacks are considered likely, other choices will be made. I don't believe that one can "have it all" and so I see each art as gaining something, and sacrificing something. To my mind, most FMA styles sacrifice some empty-hand ability to gain more weapons skills. What remains is a style that is quite effective over a range of weapons and weaponless scenarios, but is perhaps not optimized for any one of them. (There are exceptions, like Sayoc Kali's focus on knives and Balintawak's focus on the single stick.) Other arts focus on the empty-hand techniques and so develop fewer skills in weapon usage. It's a choice...which is good for the would-be student, to my mind.

Of course, I have a Karateka's build and mindset but somehow ended up in arnis...but that's another story.


----------



## Doc (Nov 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think so. You make a very good point that the act of grasping the weapon changes things further down the (body's) line than people realize. I think if empty-hand expertise is what one is training for, then training with hands empty is the way to go. Arnis takes the point of view--coming from the Philippines' traditionally knife-friendly society--that one might have to fight empty-handed, or with a knife, or with a stick, or with a sword, or...and aims to develop a good level of proficiency across these possibilities ("It's all the same"). Of course, one risks losing the smaller tweaks that make for greater expertise in just one of these areas. (We often argue this point as stick vs. sword in the FMA; what is lost in training with the stick but thinking of it as a sword?) It's a question of what one's training goals are.
> 
> I can easily see both sides of this. Apart from those in certain occupations, if one is attacked then one is likely unarmed--both because most people usually are, and because if one is obviously carrying or in proximity to something dangerous, why would the attacker choose an armed victim? Many people who do carry knives say they don't have time to deploy one when attacked and end up defending empty handed anyways; things just happen too quickly and empty-hand reflexes are what come into play. Others say that your odds of successfully defending against a weapon (or multiple opponent) attack are already low and so spending a lot of time on that may not be rewarded proportionately. (I hear this commonly from BJJ players.) For all these reasons and more, focusing on empty-hand makes sense.
> 
> ...


Mr. Parker felt when the focus is making yourself the weapon, then anything put in the hand becaomes a deadly weapon with amazing efficiency, and that was the most practical weapon in modern American society.

Very well put sir, and I would have to sign on to your point of view. I also have a feeling your "karateka build and mindset" serves you well in Arnis.


----------

