# Ed Parker on change says it all!



## Fastmover (Jul 2, 2003)

Greatgrand Master Ed Parker wrote: 
When I am gone, I hope that people won't try to traditionalize my Art. I want you to always remember that Kenpo will always be the Art of Perpetual Change. If you remember this, then the Art will never become obsolete because it will change with the times. While the ignorant refuse to study and the intelligent never stop, we should always be mindful of the fact that our reward in life is proportionate with the contributions we make. A true Martial Artist is not one who fears change, but one who causes it to happen. To live is to change, and to obtain perfection is to have changed often. Progress is a necessity that is a part of nature. While it is true that casting the old aside is not necessary in order to obtain something new, we should study old theories not as a means of discrediting them, but to see if they can be modified to improve our present conditions. A word of advice, The humble man makes room for progress; the proud man believes he is already there."
Edmund Kealoha Parker Sr.


----------



## KanoLives (Jul 2, 2003)

That's some good stuff.


----------



## KanoLives (Jul 2, 2003)

Some real good brain food. :drinkbeer


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 2, 2003)

This must be one of those meanigless homilies I heard about on another thread.


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 2, 2003)

I have plenty of other quotes from Ed Parker on this subject but since it is "meaningless homilies" I just keep them to myself. 

By the way I found a 1981 inteview with Larry Tatum discussing tradition and I found it to be very interesting.

"You see masters from the Orient coming to the United States to learn new concepts about their arts which are constantly being refined. This has happened because Americans have always been innovators-that is why this country is as great as it is. 
Traditionally, we are not traditionalists. If we were traditionalists, we would all be driving around in Model T Fords." 

I have to say I totally agree with him, if this kind of logic applied then, why not today?

Im washing my hands of this subject, we really are not getting anywhere.

Be Good,

John


----------



## MJS (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> *Greatgrand Master Ed Parker wrote:
> When I am gone, I hope that people won't try to traditionalize my Art. I want you to always remember that Kenpo will always be the Art of Perpetual Change. If you remember this, then the Art will never become obsolete because it will change with the times. While the ignorant refuse to study and the intelligent never stop, we should always be mindful of the fact that our reward in life is proportionate with the contributions we make. A true Martial Artist is not one who fears change, but one who causes it to happen. To live is to change, and to obtain perfection is to have changed often. Progress is a necessity that is a part of nature. While it is true that casting the old aside is not necessary in order to obtain something new, we should study old theories not as a means of discrediting them, but to see if they can be modified to improve our present conditions. A word of advice, The humble man makes room for progress; the proud man believes he is already there."
> Edmund Kealoha Parker Sr. *



WOW!! Some good stuff here.  Maybe some people here will learn something from this quote!

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 3, 2003)

Uh...I thought we weren't supposed to repeat the claims of tradition, but to evolve?

Here's what I think the difference may really be: you're interested in improving the technology; I'm interested in improving, and teaching others how to improve themselves, and in improving my understanding of kenpo.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> *I have plenty of other quotes from Ed Parker on this subject but since it is "meaningless homilies" I just keep them to myself.
> 
> I'm joking for gods sake; lighten up. My comment was part of another conversation with another person. I'm sorry it offended you. Please proceed.*


----------



## MJS (Jul 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh...I thought we weren't supposed to repeat the claims of tradition, but to evolve?
> 
> Here's what I think the difference may really be: you're interested in improving the technology; I'm interested in improving, and teaching others how to improve themselves, and in improving my understanding of kenpo. *



Actually, I'm interested in improving myself as well as my students.  And I try to do this by changing with the times.  Like I said before, Kenpo is an excellent art, but there are others out there, that offer things that Kenpo does not.  If I can take a concept from another place and add it to the Kenpo, just think about how much better my Kenpo is going to be.  

As for the quote by EP.  He is saying right in there, that its an art of Perpetual Change.  It will never become obsolete because it will change with the times.  By adding in concepts and ideas from other styles, this is how it will change for the better, not for the worse.

Mike


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 3, 2003)

No really I was giving you a hard time, sorry my sarcasm doesnt come across well over the internet.

Maybe im being the trouble maker!!!


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 3, 2003)

"Here's what I think the difference may really be: you're interested in improving the technology; I'm interested in improving, and teaching others how to improve themselves, and in improving my understanding of kenpo."

Im right there with you Robert, but Im interested in improving technology, improving myself, teaching others how to improve themselves, and improving my understanding of Kenpo. All of them!!! I think all these things work in harmony with each other? I dont see how we can do some without effecting the rest. 

As our understanding matures and our knowledge grows, so will that of others. It only makes sense to me that we include this enlightened knowledge to the system as we go. Personally I hope that my students at yellow belt, are better then me when I was a yellow belt and so on. 

Be Good

John


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 3, 2003)

... critical of those who chose to teach EPAK as their sole primary Art.  Maybe a new Forum needs to be added for NeoBJJexKenpoka kinda stuff?  (said with a grin an small chuckle so as to not be misunderstood.)  

The debate is fine, let's try to focus in on a thread or two instead of all over the board ... or not, it is up to yall.  But we tend to go over the same ground repetitively instead of continuing the beneficial dialogue in a single thread or two, where we can maintain the continuity of thought and not confuse others and newbies.

Just a thought.


----------



## Kirk (Jul 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *... critical of those who chose to teach EPAK as their sole primary Art.  Maybe a new Forum needs to be added for NeoBJJexKenpoka kinda stuff?  (said with a grin an small chuckle so as to not be misunderstood.)
> 
> The debate is fine, let's try to focus in on a thread or two instead of all over the board ... or not, it is up to yall.  But we tend to go over the same ground repetitively instead of continuing the beneficial dialogue in a single thread or two, where we can maintain the continuity of thought and not confuse others and newbies.
> ...




AAAAAAAAAAMEN!


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 3, 2003)

Wow:  another thread on a closely related topic.  At least we're not talking about the differences between hopping, skipping, and standing on one-leg and how long one should do any of those in a given technique.  

It is really good that Mr. Parker has returned from the beyond to opine on my favorite subject.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 3, 2003)

Jefferson Airplane had a cool lyric it went like this "one man of peace dies and a hundred wars begin..."  we can all find Parker quotes to support any argument we want to make and he ain't around to tell us we took it out of context. Maybe Kenpoka found a way.


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 3, 2003)

I invite you to read it yourself then. Its in Infinite Insights, Vol 2 page 2 of the Introduction. Actually within the context he speaks alot about tradition.

Also check out the Dedication in Vol 2. from Mr Parker.

"To all Martial Artist who welcome change, who are willing to allow it to happen, and who perpetuate change to obtain perfection, I dedicate this book."


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 3, 2003)

This is a touchy subject, so I will touch it as delicately as I can?
I personally think that often, more often than not, individuals who are "trying" to improve their "system" spend (un-neccasarily) more time trying to fit another system into said system then they actually spend trying to really understand the base system. The American Kenpo system Has a great many things hidden with in it's infrastructure that (some or many) have not yet explored or understood. Whether it be principles, concepts or motion this holds true. Let's take for Example the work that Mr. Tommy Burks is doing, I hardly think that he is studying some Kali on the side to incorporate it into Kenpo? (Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Billings?) Their are many others who are doing silimar things with IN the Kenpo System that probably may never hit the "main stream" of the Kenpo world. It's no big secret that this is possible. I watched a David German Tape years ago about "Chi-Na", in the tape he basically said that you could find all of the motion from all of the systems in this one system because they all came from it? Now whether this is true or not, who knows? But it made me think well if that's possible then isn't it possible that the system that I study holds the same? 
Well I have rambled enough, Sorry about the long winded input, hopefully it will help someone? 

Thank You and have a Great 4th!!!!
America's Independence Day!!!!!!!!!       :asian: :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

I still have the hard time understanding why people are so against cross training????  We are not all robots, even though I'm starting to think that is the case in here.  Should we all do the same thing, the same way, with the same goals in mind?? Of course not, so why are we continuing to talk about it?  It someone wants to cross train, then fine...we are all entitled to our own ways of training.  Sure, Kenpo has knife disarms, and stick disarms, and locks, but if some people found an interest in the knife or the stick, why can't they go and train with an inst. who does this?  Because its breaking away from tradition?? PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK!!   Are you honestly gong to tell me that any Kenpo inst. can fight with a stick or knife as good as someone like Dan Inosanto?? I VERY highly doubt it.  Of course, those inst who can, must have trained with someone else, right?  Sure, some of those things that were mentioned are in Kenpo, but if you wanted to explore deeper into it, I really don't think that you will find it unless you look elsewhere!

Mike


----------



## kkbb (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *I still have the hard time understanding why people are so against cross training????  We are not all robots, even though I'm starting to think that is the case in here.  Should we all do the same thing, the same way, with the same goals in mind?? Of course not, so why are we continuing to talk about it?  It someone wants to cross train, then fine...we are all entitled to our own ways of training.  Sure, Kenpo has knife disarms, and stick disarms, and locks, but if some people found an interest in the knife or the stick, why can't they go and train with an inst. who does this?  Because its breaking away from tradition?? PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK!!   Are you honestly gong to tell me that any Kenpo inst. can fight with a stick or knife as good as someone like Dan Inosanto?? I VERY highly doubt it.  Of course, those inst who can, must have trained with someone else, right?  Sure, some of those things that were mentioned are in Kenpo, but if you wanted to explore deeper into it, I really don't think that you will find it unless you look elsewhere!
> 
> Mike *



I don't think anybody is against anybody cross training.  I think that anybody cross training because of "percieved" deficincies in their art (kenpo or not) is the point of argument.  When we cross train because we think the answer is elsewhere then we have short changed ourselves in our own art.  The concepts and principles in our own art (again kenpo or others) are not usually compatable and do not cross lines well.  Therefore to bring outside concepts and principles into your own art is "foreign" and has a tendency to water down not strengthen the art you study.  Mr Parker's point here, if I may be so humble as to presume what he was thinking, is that evolution "within" the confines of kenpo is an absolute must.   To study Arnis, Bjj, Shotokan, Taekwondo, etc... is a good idea...but..... and I mean.... but...  to add those concepts (that are foriegn) to your art is not a good idea.  To learn those concepts then to modify and adjust your Kenpo (or whatever) to counter those techniques, without wholesale change is the prefered "evolution" I think Mr. Parker was after.

Maybe people should, with the help of their instructor, "play" with scenarios, what if's, how could's?...and come up with answers to many unsolved questions... like "What happens if I end up on the ground?" etc... then share that info..... you never know.... they may be the next "real innovator" in their respective art....:asian:


----------



## MJS (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kkbb _
> *I don't think anybody is against anybody cross training.  I think that anybody cross training because of "percieved" deficincies in their art (kenpo or not) is the point of argument.  When we cross train because we think the answer is elsewhere then we have short changed ourselves in our own art.  The concepts and principles in our own art (again kenpo or others) are not usually compatable and do not cross lines well.  Therefore to bring outside concepts and principles into your own art is "foreign" and has a tendency to water down not strengthen the art you study.  Mr Parker's point here, if I may be so humble as to presume what he was thinking, is that evolution "within" the confines of kenpo is an absolute must.   To study Arnis, Bjj, Shotokan, Taekwondo, etc... is a good idea...but..... and I mean.... but...  to add those concepts (that are foriegn) to your art is not a good idea.  To learn those concepts then to modify and adjust your Kenpo (or whatever) to counter those techniques, without wholesale change is the prefered "evolution" I think Mr. Parker was after.
> 
> Maybe people should, with the help of their instructor, "play" with scenarios, what if's, how could's?...and come up with answers to many unsolved questions... like "What happens if I end up on the ground?" etc... then share that info..... you never know.... they may be the next "real innovator" in their respective art....:asian: *



KKBB- with all due respect, I have to say that I disagree!  It sounds to me like you are saying that why bother to cross train, because if you wait 10 or 20 yrs and devote yourself to just one thing, then maybe, just maybe you will find it in there somewhere??? That is CRAZY!!!  You say that the ideas do not fit in well with Kenpo?  Another crazy statement.  Bottom line is, is that nobody wants to make them fit.  I train in Modern Arnis, and I find that some of the movements greatly help my Kenpo.

You mention watering down things.  If anything, crosstraing improves your training, not waters it down.

You also mention studying BJJ is not a good idea, but then you say well, go ahead and study it, but then bring the concepts over to the Kenpo.  That is what i've been saying all along, but NOBODY is listening.  Well, correction there, some people listen, while others dont.  Anyway, I never said to take another 10 yrs of your life and study another art in its entirety.  I said, if you want to do that, then fine, but there is nothing wrong with taking an idea from another art and adding to Kenpo.  If anything, it will be something to add to your own knowledge.  Go back and re-read some of my posts.  This is exactly what I've been attempting to say!!!

Mike


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 5, 2003)

If I remember later I will post the quote from the end of Infinite Insights vol 1 that I love.  But it goes something like this:

"I urge you to keep abreast of new innovations in the use of your natural weapons......"

It is all about keeping up with the times!

(If anyone wants to post it first, it's right after the discussion of the machine gun in the colliseum)

~TT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2003)

Has it occurred to anybody that there's an inherent contradiction in insisting that we not slavishly repeat the kenpo system, then turning around and repeating Mr. Parker's words again and again and again?

It is NOT all about keeping up with the times. What's as important, the urge to go study this or that style is not the same thing as modernizing.

The basic argument, built into kenpo as a whole, is that kenpo is not just another system. None of the other systems are "foreign," to it. Is it true. From what I've seen, yes. But I dunno if that's what I'll think in ten years.

If you pick and choose without reasons for picking and choosing, there's a problem. Kenpo provides reasons for picking and choosing. 

There is groundfighting in kenpo. Its approach is not the same as BJJ. Kenpo does not focus on groundfighting, or any other single fighting skill for that matter. It has a different focus.

It is not necessarily "CRAZY!" to want to study for a long time. 

Nobody can plug every hole in their ability to protect themselves.

And, the biggie: what, precisely, are people teaching their students?


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Has it occurred to anybody that there's an inherent contradiction in insisting that we not slavishly repeat the kenpo system, then turning around and repeating Mr. Parker's words again and again and again?
> 
> It is NOT all about keeping up with the times. What's as important, the urge to go study this or that style is not the same thing as modernizing.
> ...



WOW!! Once again,here we go....talking in circles.  Why can't the question be answered instead of answering it with another queston???????????????????????  Repeating MR, Parkers words....well, considering he has ALOT of knowledge, alot more than some of us here, why not listen to them?   Robert, what is YOUR version of modernizing??  Like I have said before, our versions of groundfighting are VERY different.  Robert, please share with us, YOUR version of what groundfighting is in Kenpo???

What am I teaching my students?  It depends on the student and what THEY want out of it.  I teach them the SD, but if it looks like they are not sure about the tech. I make sure that they have an understanding of it.  I show them the "What IFS" in the tech.  I also add my own little tricks to spice up the tech.

MS


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2003)

Our instructors are only human Even though Kenpo by defenition
(a way of using your fists with parameters defined) has every possible logical motion that anyone can think of, your instructor can not possibly be privy to all the innovations of modern times. I'll tell you this, my instructor is such a man that I feel I'll never know as much about kenpo as he does; however, he has long since stopped claiming he knows all anyone needs to know. Looking at motion through the filters that other systems provide are the "spaces between the notes" that Ed Parker spoke of, in my opinion.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Our instructors are only human Even though Kenpo by defenition
> (a way of using your fists with parameters defined) has every possible logical motion that anyone can think of, your instructor can not possibly be privy to all the innovations of modern times. I'll tell you this, my instructor is such a man that I feel I'll never know as much about kenpo as he does; however, he has long since stopped claiming he knows all anyone needs to know. Looking at motion through the filters that other systems provide are the "spaces between the notes" that Ed Parker spoke of, in my opinion. *



TOD- My instructors do NOT know everything.  But, they, through the arts that they have studied, have shown me the weaknesses in Kenpo.  Through them, I've been able to fill those gaps.

MS


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *TOD- My instructors do NOT know everything.  But, they, through the arts that they have studied, have shown me the weaknesses in Kenpo.  Through them, I've been able to fill those gaps.
> 
> MS *


I hope you mean you are in the process of.


----------



## Kalicombat (Jul 5, 2003)

Touch 0'Death,
   No, I think MJS realy believes he has all the answers. He has spewed his nonsense on the validity of groundfighting, the holes that Kenpo possess, and what a rugged "Real Life" combatant he is. He's even let us in on his prison career. He hasnt however, given us anything we havent heard from any other number of ground fighting proponents that have come to this board. He has a reply for everything. He is after all, only 29 years old, and has been in the martial arts for 17, so it would go to figure that he has it all figured out. 
   Maybe he's an innovator. Trying to enlighten the kenpo population on the things that we have all missed.

MJS,
   Its simple. Regardless of training, system, style, technique, skill conditioning, etc.... If any of us cant make what we learn work for us, then it is useless. Martial artists all have preferences, and those preferences are based upon many factors. For me, experience has shaped my preferences, and knowing what has worked and what hasnt worked for me in the past, even  more so. 
   I dont care what you think of kenpo, but I do care that you come here, and try to continuously convert kenpoists into believing in your rants. You have a right to your opinion, but not at the cost of trying to discredit everyone elses.  You're not going to cause John Kenpo Doe to sit at his computer and suddenly question weather the training he has been doing for the last year, 2, 3, 4, 20, etc... is all useless just because some cat from Connecticut has stated that it is. 
   You continuously spout that there are those in here that are close minded, dont you think that is the pot calling the kettle black? You have already learned enough to know that groundfighting is the way. I have learned that it isnt.  I've fought grapplers, with finishing skills and with out. They bleed just like everyone else. They are not impervious to pain, and when their cranials make contact with cement, they suffer from the smae concusions we all do. 
   You, in my opinion, are a success story for the marketing hype of the Gracies, and the NHB craze. They filled the magazines and pay-per-view schedules with their shows, videos, and ads hoping to attract a group of people much like you seem to be. Those that are looking for THEE answer.  Well, sit down for this..... There is NO "THEE" answer.  I dont know you, have never met you or ever seen a picture of you, but it is my guess you are a small statured man. Not that small statured men are all like you, but you seem to have the Napolean complex. Or, to put it another way, the smallest dogs make the biggest noise. 
    Good luck in your quest to teach us all what we are missing or lacking. 

Gary Catherman.


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 5, 2003)

"There is groundfighting in kenpo. Its approach is not the same as BJJ."


I agree to this to some extent. Even though Mr Parker did not leave a ground fighting system in place in Kenpo, many if not most principles of Kenpo do apply on the ground. Our approach on the ground should not be the same as the BJJ guys. I would not advocate anyone to continue to engage and re-engage their opponent on the ground in a self defense situation. Escape and getting back to our feet is key. 

By the way it was a good point on the examples of Kenpo on the ground in Vol 3 in another thread.

Take care
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2003)

Thank you.


----------



## Doc (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> *Greatgrand Master Ed Parker wrote:
> When I am gone, I hope that people won't try to traditionalize my Art. I want you to always remember that Kenpo will always be the Art of Perpetual Change. If you remember this, then the Art will never become obsolete because it will change with the times. While the ignorant refuse to study and the intelligent never stop, we should always be mindful of the fact that our reward in life is proportionate with the contributions we make. A true Martial Artist is not one who fears change, but one who causes it to happen. To live is to change, and to obtain perfection is to have changed often. Progress is a necessity that is a part of nature. While it is true that casting the old aside is not necessary in order to obtain something new, we should study old theories not as a means of discrediting them, but to see if they can be modified to improve our present conditions. A word of advice, The humble man makes room for progress; the proud man believes he is already there."
> Edmund Kealoha Parker Sr. *



That has been posted on our home page of our SubLevel Four Kenpo site for ten years.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kalicombat _
> *Touch 0'Death,
> No, I think MJS realy believes he has all the answers. He has spewed his nonsense on the validity of groundfighting, the holes that Kenpo possess, and what a rugged "Real Life" combatant he is. He's even let us in on his prison career. He hasnt however, given us anything we havent heard from any other number of ground fighting proponents that have come to this board. He has a reply for everything. He is after all, only 29 years old, and has been in the martial arts for 17, so it would go to figure that he has it all figured out.
> Maybe he's an innovator. Trying to enlighten the kenpo population on the things that we have all missed.
> ...



Gary-I am not trying to convert anybody.  I'm simply stating some things that I have seen in Kenpo, and what I have done to change them for my own needs.  I'm simply offering a suggestion, what you do is your own business, and I could care less.  You keep referring, and I dont know why, to the ground fihgting.  I have said before, and I'll say again, that I am not saying study the art for 20 yrs, but there is nothing wrong with taking a few things and adding it to the Kenpo.  My age and expereince in the prison also has nothing to do with it.  Are you saying that just because I'm only 29 that I'm an expert on every topic? Because that is not what I'm saying.  I dont know how long you've been training, maybe its longer and maybe not.  Regardless, I have come across other people that I train with that I have trained my Kenpo with, who have found the weaknesses in the art.  As for the prison, I used that example, because, there are people in there that could care less about your life, and would think nothing of assaulting or even killing you.  If you want to survive in there, you better have some decent skills.

Just because I grapple, does not make me an expert on the subject.  It is something I do because I like it..if you dont thats fine, I could  care less.  It appears to me that everybody in here in content with the skills that they learn.  GREAT!  However, you should not look down upon somebody just because they are offering a suggestion as to maybe make something a little better.  As for my size...well at 5'10, I dont consider myself small or large.  I don't have a small mans complex, in fact, I feel very confident with the skills that I have.  You, like so many others on here, seem so closed to any suggestions, because God forbid it isnt kenpo, then it must not be any good.  You talk about the pot calling the kettle black....well, at least I have an open mind and am not afraid to admit a shortcoming or weakness unlike you.  Maybe at some point in your MA training, you will see what I'm talking about, but then again, I'm sure that you won't!

Mike


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 5, 2003)

I saw that myself, its one of many great quotes that Mr. Parker left behind.

Be Good


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 5, 2003)

"That has been posted on our home page of our SubLevel Four Kenpo site for ten years."

Whoops sorry......

I saw that myself, its one of many great quotes that Mr. Parker left behind. Good stuff!


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 7, 2003)

Ok, Book 5 page 233. 
"Therefore, I write not to make converts, but to share concepts and principles overlooked by other systems. I further hope that capitalizing on my discoveries will allow those who are interested, more time to experiment and exploit other areas needing study."
Really, what is he saying? How does this effect us as Martial artists AND  Kenpoists? What does it matter what Mr. Parker thought, he is no longer with us to regulate the administration of education of the Kenpo system? What is Kenpo Now?

Happy arguing :asian: :asian:


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 7, 2003)

sumdumguy,

That is a great quote.  I'm sure it will quickly appear on the other threads at present   by one side as validating Parker's encouragement on looking into other arts, and by the other as backup that kenpo has all the principles found in the arts.

At least we will have something new to argue about  

~TT


----------



## Turner (Jul 8, 2003)

I've seen this topic come up time and time again and I've seen people get utterly pummelled because of their opinion. All for what? Is this just another example of Kenpo politics running amok? It is great that you guys/gals are A-type personalities but it would be really nice if you could temper that passion with a good dose of logic and see what the other is saying.

I'll spell it out for you: Both sides are right!

The average Kenpo instructor doesn't teach much in the way of working with a stick or fighting on the ground. The average student is going to have difficulty using the Kenpo principles while standing and while on the ground...

Kenpo attracted me because it was all about self defense. It taught the why's and hows of Kenpo as soon as you started learning. It acted under the presumption that you didn't have 5 years to learn how to defend yourself because you could be attacked on your way home from class that very night. Kenpo is about being effective and efficient.

Kenpo teachs principles that will work in any situation, whether on the ground, with weapons or standing up. It all works because it is founded on basic truths. Yet the average Kenpo instructor doesn't teach how those principles relate to weapons or groundwork so the average student isn't going to quickly grasp how they relate to each other. There is no frame of comparison and the Kenpo teacher may not have the experience, knowledge or understanding to make it click.

What is the student to do? Should they stay with Kenpo and just figure out how those principles work on the ground? It could take a life time to do that. Isn't it more effective and efficient to go to someone who is specifically trained for ground fighting and learn how they do it and then look at the techniques and be able to say "Wow, That principle that I learned in Five Swords also works here."

Everyone has to remember that we are but human. We should strive to achieve our fullest potential no matter which way it takes us. How we teach Kenpo or a Kenpo mix will always be flawwed, we will always have a student look at our art and find little holes that need to be filled. The simple fact is that we are human and can not fill these holes, but we shouldn't give up. If it takes learning Brazilian Jujitsu or Arnis to fill these holes... do it and don't worry what anyone thinks. If you would prefer to look at those holes and see how Kenpo itself can fill those holes... do it and don't worry what anyone thinks. Just shut up and train. If you think that the Kenpo that you are taught doesn't have any holes, then you need to look again. EVERYTHING created by man can be improved upon. If your Kenpo is perfect then what are you training for?

It's all in there. It doesn't matter if you are studying Kenpo, Brazilian Jujitsu, Goju-ryu Karate or Hapkido... All of the answers are contained in that art if you just look hard enough to find them. The principles are there. Just sometimes/most of the times you need to go to another art or another teacher to see how they all relate to each other. Yes it is flawed and yet at the same time it is perfect. I'd have to write a book to explain it well. 

But I'm only 25 so my ideas would be thrown out... That is one thing I hate about martial artists. Age don't mean jack when it comes to skill or experience in any aspect of life. I've lived more in my 25 years than most people live in 50, then then that is another book I'd have to write.

So just shut your pie hole and train. There is more than one way to do things and one doesn't have to be better than the other. It's just different.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 8, 2003)

Turner:  Thank you for eloquently summarizing over 100 posts on four different threads.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 8, 2003)

I would at least read your book.  

You gave a good, reasonable, synopsis ... and provided answers, or training paradigms, for both sides in the contraversy.  Well done!


----------



## lonekimono (Jul 8, 2003)

It just makes my head spin when i see people talking about Mr Parker and what he said( which i like) but i know some people don't follow the Parker system, and that's ok to but  like i said in another post let's put all the power that we are using to get someone mad and have then say something that will get EVERYONE going, what the hell is wrong with people??
let's move on. Mr Parker said alot of cool things and did alot of great things , I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS OK?? now i have to go open my school, play nice.:asian: :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2003)

"It could take a life time to do that. Isn't it more effective and efficient to go to someone who is specifically trained for ground fighting and learn how they do it and then look at the techniques...?"

Yes, it could.  And the attempt to circumvent the necessity of long study, and to immediately go for what is immediately, "efficient," is exactly where the problems appear.

Martial arts are not simply about learning technology quickly--even if we assume that nobody's instructors teach this stuff. Yes, kenpo offers self-defense organized efficently, teachably, intelligently. Yes, kenpo offers the same criticism of traditional arts that is being offered here, so all some folks are doing is following out the basic logic of Mr. Parker's ideas. 

However--and it's a point that Mr. Parker and others have made again and again and again...it is still more efficient to get a gun. As I have in the past, I'd refer everybody to that great theoretical work, Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park," for commentary on the difference between power acquired quickly, easily, cheaply, and power acquired through slow, tedious, difficult study.

But I never saw this as two sides of an argument, however badly some folks insisted upon such polarization.

And--sorry to be personal--but while it's one thing to have fifty years of experience and another to have one year's experience 50 times, there is also such a thing as experience. Which I am not claiming, in the martial arts--life, different story.


----------



## roryneil (Jul 8, 2003)

I don't think someone at my mid-belt level should be jumping from art to art, or even bother to look at another art until obtaining a black in his/her primary art. But a 4th degree black doesn't necessarily need slow, tedious and difficult study in a new and perhaps similar art. You certainly don't need to learn how to make a fist or anything of that nature.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 8, 2003)

Turner,

That was a well-thought and articulate post.  I'm sure you will get much argument over it    In all seriousness, I agree.  And don't get down on yourself for being 25-I'm 23 and I know you're right  

Rory,

What you say is also true.  I know only a few individuals who successfully trained in more than one style WITHOUT starting with a strong base in a single style.  (The last one was a guy who got black belts in both Kenpo and Modern Arnis within 5 years....hell of a guy....he's a great teacher, to boot).  It is very difficult to train multiple styles without having a solid foundation in one, unless you are very organized, very motivated, and usually pretty athletically inclined.  I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but many people burn out or get overwhelmed.  

The exception to what I've just said is when an intermediate level student of one art starts taking a completely different art, and the primary art is clearly emphasized over the other.  For example, I was a purple belt in Kenpo when I started Arnis, but Arnis was strictly supplemental for me until I got my black in Kenpo.  I did it because it was at the same school, and there was little overlap until I became advanced.  After black belt, it was all about Arnis!

To study two styles with equal intensity without a background in martial arts is extremely difficult.  

Best,

~TT


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 8, 2003)

Rory:

Study of a new art doesn't need to be slow or tedious, but it does need to go back to the most simple basics.

For instance, compare a Kenpo stance to a Shotokan stance.  Kenpo neutral bow has a 50/50 front/rear weight distribution.  Kenpo forward bow is 60/40.  Shotokan fighting stances are 60/40 and Front Bow's are more like 70/30.  This subtle difference in weighting has a huge impact on how much power you deliver and how quickly you move.  Whether you train to settle at 50/50 or 60/40 makes a big difference in whether you are going to move like a Kenpoist or like a Shotokan-ist.  

Likewise simple basics such as blocking.  Does you block start from a neutral position or a check position as in Kenpo, or is it a fully committed and cocked move like in Shotokan?  

How about comparing a boxing hook punch vs a Kenpoists hook punch.  If other Kenpoists learned to throw a hook in the early 70's like me, they learned to throw a hook punch that starts from the hip, rotates with the hips toward the target and then turns into a straight punch.  Boxers learn a hook that starts at head level and rotates around the center line on a horizontal plane.  If you train one style, you have to relearn basics to move to another and can't necessarily jump from a 3rd or 4th Degree in Kenpo to the same proficiency in Shotokan, Boxing, or any other art.

The value of this type of cross training is more than just learning the new style.  You also learn to question you Kenpo and analyze why movements are done the way they are.  It really helps your Kenpo understanding.

An analogy I like to use is studying a foreign language.  In high school, everyone had to study a foreign language.  I chose Spanish.  I learned a lot about grammar that really helped me in my understanding of English.  Certainly, I could have refused to study the foreign language arguing that I needed to learn a lot more English before I learned anything else.  But then I would have lost out on the insights into English I gained by learning Spanish.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *
> An analogy I like to use is studying a foreign language.  In high school, everyone had to study a foreign language.  I chose Spanish.  I learned a lot about grammar that really helped me in my understanding of English.  Certainly, I could have refused to study the foreign language arguing that I needed to learn a lot more English before I learned anything else.  But then I would have lost out on the insights into English I gained by learning Spanish. *



Had you continued to study English would you not have gained the same knowledge?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 8, 2003)

Clyde:  Good question.  Yes, actually I already had the knowledge, but what I was missing and would have missed for a very long time was the understanding of the importance of the knowledge.

I understood the basics of English grammar before I got to high school.  I knew how to conjugate verbs and knew all kinds of fancy rules for sentence construction.  But I took it for granted and didn't think it was important.

What I didn't know before studying Spanish was why the rules were important, that other rules existed or even could exist, and that there were rules for which English had no equivalent.  Examples of the rules with no equivalent include having both a familiar and formal version of the word "you" ("tu" and "usted") along with different verb conjugations for tu and usted, and assigning gender to nouns and adjectives.  

Learning these rules in Spanish made me look at and compare the rules in English.  Learning Spanish grammar forced me to stop taking English grammar for granted.

So too with my Martial Arts study.  I took Shotokan for a couple of years to satisfy my college PE requirement.  It really helped me understand stances, power, explosion and to better understand how those work in Kenpo.  Aiki-Jujitsu helped me understand the joint leverage and manipulation that is so important in many Kenpo techniques.  Could I have learned this from a Kenpo instructor?  Sure.  But, for me, not as quickly.  It was the comparative perspective that switched the light on for me.  It was looking in from the outside that helped me to understand why Kenpo principles were important and how they work both in Kenpo and outside of Kenpo.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 8, 2003)

I can relate to OFK with the English-spanish connection.  I didn't realize that people used adverbs so infrequently until I started needing to use them in spanish.  

Could I have learned that without spanish?  YES.  But sometimes all it takes is a fresh perspective (it could have been a new english teacher) to make that point.  But once I saw that, I extrapolated the idea back into English and became newly self-aware.  It refined a part of my self-analysis.  

The same is true of all the arts I study.  They all feed back into one another, and lead me right back to the beginning.

Great analogy, OFK.

~TT


----------



## lonekimono (Jul 8, 2003)

Hey guys i know what, i'll put on the coffee and we can all come over to my house and talk oh and if someone can bring the coffee cake?


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 8, 2003)

i'll bring the eye protection.  

ya never know!  

~TT


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Jul 8, 2003)

> Had you continued to study English would you not have gained the same knowledge?
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde



Actually Clyde I've learned more about the english language during the short amount of time that I've been studying Russian than I ever did as an undergrad.

Sometimes you need a fresh perspective.  



> "It could take a life time to do that. Isn't it more effective and efficient to go to someone who is specifically trained for ground fighting and learn how they do it and then look at the techniques...?"
> 
> Robertson:
> Yes, it could. And the attempt to circumvent the necessity of long study, and to immediately go for what is immediately, "efficient," is exactly where the problems appear.



Says you!!!  That is the worst argument I've heard against cross training yet.  Do I advocate that every body study two or three arts?  No (....but hell... Chapel has studied in a bunch of different arts and everyone seems to be okay with that).  I don't care how much you argue, people are, essentially, the summation of their experiences.  So I'm not sure how Chapel can argue that his past study doesn't, in any way, effect the way he teaches, but whatever.

If I can be an efficient groundfighter with one year of crosstraining as opposed to 10 years of guided kenpo study, guess which one I'm gonna pick?  I guess I'm just contributing to the degradation of the art, huh?


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Actually Clyde I've learned more about the english language during the short amount of time that I've been studying Russian than I ever did as an undergrad.
> 
> Sometimes you need a fresh perspective.
> ...



I suppose it all boils down to what or how you've been taught.   If there are holes in your Kenpo it's because of three reasons 1) you didn't grasp or care to take the info given 2)your instructor wasn't/isn't privy to the info so you don't get it either 3)your instructor has/had the info but does not care to share it with you.    The same theory could be applied to those that said learning another language made their English better.   

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2003)

As the only guy here who actually has studied English and martial arts for more than ten years each--well, I think I am...likely to be wrong again--let me repeat: the problem isn't cross-training.

Ya wanna cross-train, cross-train. Groovy. You may get further than I have. Even better.

The problem are the rationales--the Almighty God of Efficiency; becoming a better fighter; acquiring more technology.

Here's another way to put it--borrowed from Mr. Tatum--since by brown belt you can defend yourself in any reasonable situation (I'd add my own twist--by black, you can handle pretty much as you're ever going to be able to handle, in terms of sheer fighting--though not matters like strategy)--what's the point of going beyond brown belt?

If you think it's just a matter of fighting, there is no point. And this is where the real contradiction appears--I don't believe it's just fighting skills that we're trying to learn.

I despise efficiency for efficiency's sake. Among other things--stupid forms! this is a chunk of what those worthless forms teach--it leaves out the fact that in martial arts, the most-beautiful is also the strongest and most appropriate. (Please, spare me the cliche that in a fight form goes out the window; yes, indeedy, I've heard and read the cliche that," guts and heart take over where..." I got it, OK?)

I also don't believe for a second that piling tech on tech, move on move, goes anywhere. This is a big chunk of what's wrong with my writing students--they think writing well is just a matter of learning a buncha tricks, techniques without purpose or meaning or heart. Who cares if you have anything to say?

The best reason I've heard to cross-train is OFK's. But again, if ya wanna, go get 'em for whatever reason. Hell, who am I to say? So many are more talented, more insightful than I am...great. But just quit reiterating that everyvody has to..well, you get the picture.


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

Turner- EXCELLENT post!  We all train under different inst. who have different exp and was of teaching.  Everybody does things differently.  It is true, like Clyde said in reagrds to the training, but unfortunately, we can't all train under a direct student of Parker.  As for the cross training, this too, is something that is not for everybody.  We are all different.  We all learn things in a different way.  Some of us would have no problem with learning 2 arts, while others would.  It all depends on the person.  Just because one person doesnt like it, does not mean that nobody else should do it.  

I would not recommend crosstraining until the person has a good understanding of their base art.  If someone has never done MA, they will be having a hard enough time learning the basic moves in Kenpo, nevermind trying to learn TKD, or boxing, or BJJ!  

Turner, another thing that you said which I find very true.  You said, if your Kenpo is so perfect, then why train?  Like I said in the beginning, we are all different.  Just because one person disagrees, does not mean we all have to!  There are many Kenpo inst. that have rank in other arts.  They are crosstraining and you are right, nobody seems to say anything to them.  Why is that?  Instead of being so concerned as to what others are doing, people should be more concerned with themselves!!!!  Is your skill level going up?  Are you becoming a better fighter?  Are you training? If you can answer yes to these questions, then you are on the right path.  As long as its working for you, who cares what someone else thinks.  

As for crosstraining, I  can only speak for myself.  If we only do 1 thing, how can you possibly learn how anyone else is going to fight?  If I'm making myself better and making my Kenpo better by learning a move from JKD, then who cares.  As long as the individual person is getting better, why should anybody else feel the need to get involved?

MJS


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Turner- EXCELLENT post!  We all train under different inst. who have different exp and was of teaching.  Everybody does things differently.  It is true, like Clyde said in reagrds to the training, but unfortunately, we can't all train under a direct student of Parker.  As for the cross training, this too, is something that is not for everybody.  We are all different.  We all learn things in a different way.  Some of us would have no problem with learning 2 arts, while others would.  It all depends on the person.  Just because one person doesnt like it, does not mean that nobody else should do it.
> 
> I would not recommend crosstraining until the person has a good understanding of their base art.  If someone has never done MA, they will be having a hard enough time learning the basic moves in Kenpo, nevermind trying to learn TKD, or boxing, or BJJ!
> ...



I never thought of it as an issue until it came up here.   My only involvement is my posts, and everybody else's.    If you choose not to have this involvement, it's a simple mouse click away.  And then there's always that ignore feature on this site, which would be of value on the KenpoNet LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> I also don't believe for a second that piling tech on tech, move on move, goes anywhere. This is a big chunk of what's wrong with my writing students--they think writing well is just a matter of learning a buncha tricks, techniques without purpose or meaning or heart. Who cares if you have anything to say?
> 
> The best reason I've heard to cross-train is OFK's. But again, if ya wanna, go get 'em for whatever reason. Hell, who am I to say? So many are more talented, more insightful than I am...great. But just quit reiterating that everyvody has to..well, you get the picture. [/B]



As for piling on tech after tech.--In the Kenpo system, we have countless tech.  and extensions afte that.  Why do the extension?  Isn't that just adding more?  Even if you are not adding extra tech. why can't you borrow a concept or idea from another art and apply it to the Kenpo?  You mentioned writing.  When we first learned to write, we learned how to put a sentence together, add periods, commas, etc.  Why bother doing that?  Why not just let the sentences run into each other, with no punctuation?  That is in a way, adding more to what you already know, right?

Please dont confuse someones input with them being more talented and insightful than you.  We are all different.  Neither myself, or any of the recent posters is speaking for everybody...they are speaking in general and about themselves.  They have made NO mention that in order for someone to be good, they have to cross train.  They are simply saying that it happens to work for them.

MJS


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *I never thought of it as an issue until it came up here.   My only involvement is my posts, and everybody else's.    If you choose not to have this involvement, it's a simple mouse click away.  And then there's always that ignore feature on this site, which would be of value on the KenpoNet LOL.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> ...



And that is your choosing!!  If you choose not to cross train, then that is your business.  I, along with a few others on here happen to do that, and it works for us.  Will it work for someone else? Well, that depends on the person.  It isnt for everybody!

MJS


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2003)

Uh... if you'd just been explaining what works for you, I doubt anybody'd have any objections. 

But that's not the case. From the start, you've insisted in all sorts of ways that anybody who doesn't cross-train is an idiot...

At the very least and most moderate, there's been this sort of thing: "As for crosstraining, I can only speak for myself. If we only do 1 thing, how can you possibly learn how anyone else is going to fight?" On one hand, "I"--fair enough, and on the other, "we." To mention the old joke about Tonto and the Lone Ranger surrounded by Indians, "What's this we...?"  

Then there's all this nonsense, about, "it isn't for everybody," and the constant suggestion that only you want to learn "real," martial arts. Tell me what "real," is, and I'll tell you whether I agree. (Trust me: Clyde is real, in all senses. I have the lumps to prove it.)

Two other points. First, part of what I was trying to say is that sheer personal desire and even personal brilliance doesn't make one capable of changing things. You need to be in the right place at the right time, to get an Edward Parker. The times have changed.

Second--learning extensions within kenpo ain't at all the same thing, for reasons I already discussed. Skill, technique--vocabulary in many senses--are all to the good. Unless they lack an animating spirit and an organizing philosophy--which is what can too-easily be lost. And anyway, haven't you argued for doing away with a buncha techniques? the sets? the forms? all that "useless," stuff in kenpo?

For about the 95th time, I think it's great that you're doing what you're doing.  Mazeltov. Just quit telling the rest of us about the "holes," the impracticality, of what we're doing, eh? Maybe a few fewer exclamation points too, but that's just the English teacher in me...

I can appreciate what you're doing. You need to appreciate this: some of us are older, and we have different aims. You're interested in fighting--I'm not. I'm interested in teaching, and self-defense.

I could quote the, "Car Talk," guys here, but you get the point.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 9, 2003)

To be against cross training is to reject understanding how other people think. Plato talked about that "shadows in a cave" thing. We are creating a culture of cave dwellers here. Saying and hearing that those other styles suck might help endear a beginner to Kenpo but that love will be short lived once the real world hits. Step into the light


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2003)

Sigh.

I guess I'll just have to reconcile myself to being an eyeless cave fish.


----------



## Seig (Jul 9, 2003)

in these discussions.  I have argued with nearly everyone on this board at some point.  Sometimes because I actually believed in what I was saying, and others merely because I was playing the devil's advocate.  This silly debate has now spanned how long and how many threads?  That in and of itself is becoming a common theme,"If a signifigant amount of people disagree with you, create a new thread on the same topic."  Instead of endless debate with several of you, I have been debating myself for several days on whether or not to post this.  Some believe in cross training, others do not.  Here is my simple statement on that entire topic, the martial arts are very similiar to a pyramid.  Once you get to the top, regardless of which one you are on, the view is pretty much the same.  A very good friend of mine does the Phillipino arts, I do kenpo, we are both advanced students.  Guess what, in many ways we move very similiarly.  I am all for everyone becoming better martial artists, but what the real argument that is forming is, purists vs mixers.  We here about change and evolution of the art, and it is very obvious that SGM wanted just that.  What he did not tell us was how.  At least he didn't tell me, I wasn't there and have to rely on his books, videos and the accounts of those that were.  We have heard from some of them.  My question for you is this, at what point have we evolved Kenpo so much that it is no longer Kenpo?  If we wish to grow and adapt and innovate our art, should we not have a complete understanding of the base system first?  SGM left us the tools to do it, "what if" "formulation".  No matter which curriculuum you study, there is a point at which the curriculuum is completed, is there not?  Isn't that the point that was set for people to start innovating?  In the 32 tech system, it was first degree black, in the 24 tech, it is 3rd degree, and in the 16 tech it is 5th black.  Now, I'm not going to go through _that_ particular argument.  But the issue within this issue is that you need time and experience within the art to really understand it.  Remember, American Kenpo is a system, not a style.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 9, 2003)

well first of all I never said we should devote years and years to cross training. escapes from the mount or understanding the defensive nature of Muay Thai are things to keep in mind not devote your life to. The lessons these other systems have to teach come very quickly as contasted with your kenpo training. Kenpo is only three simple moves in varying order; so, learning every possible senerio of motion isnt going to add to your ability to move it only adds to your tactical repitios. Kenpo usualy teaches a return motion that is counter to the return motion of Muay Thai. I shouldn't have to do one for fifteen years before I learn the other (which is exactly what I did). I have room in my life for both methods, and I think you do too.


----------



## Seig (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Kenpo is only three simple moves in varying order; *


Please, enlighten me.


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

Rob-  You know, it amazes me how things get so easily misunderstood by you.  I have never said anyone was an idiot or stupid.  You are definately a person that always has to be right, have the last word, and will never admit that you make mistakes.  Regarding the cross training- If you dont feel it necessary to do, that is fine.  If you take me saying that it is an important thing to do as me calling you an idiot, then you have a problem.  I, along with countless others, have said that it is not something we all have to do.  But dont think that everything is addressed, cuz it isnt.  It might be in a small way, but to say that everything is included, is a misconception.   Show me where I said forms were useless? There you go again, taking things I say and twisting them.  Maybe you're not reading it right, in which case, sit down and do it again!!  The numerous tech.  Sure, there are many tech in Kenpo as well as other arts.  Is taking a concept or idea from another art adding a tech? No, it isnt.  

You constantly say that I have called people stupid.  Not true.  I have also said many times that we all train for different reasons.  Fitness, SD, self confidence/control, and just something fun to do.  You're reasons are different than mine.  Tell me, what made you want to do the arts?  I never said that we all had to join the UFC and become the next grappling champ, that is something YOU said.  

MJS


----------



## lonekimono (Jul 9, 2003)

well what do you know i have the coffee on and  martial talk on,
hey guys crosstraining?  i rather talk about crossdressing, 
that would be funny 
 look he said,she said, they said, who the hell cares? 
do what you want to do( as long as it's kenpo):rofl: :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 9, 2003)

... instead of a dress!

No but seriously folks.  Seig, just to ice the cake, I have one of Danny Inosanto's senior students, Ray Parra, who has been in JKD, Silat, Escrima, Kali, etc., since the late 60's, teaching in the school where I am.  Guess what, he is surprised we check, use open hand strikes, buckle and sweep.  Gee, we sorta look alike, and move similarly.  He calls them different names, but moves well, intermittent, explosive, relaxed power ... the same thing that often defines the movement of an advance Kenpo practioner.

It is not always the case that it is all the "Sam Ting", but with the Arts you are being advocated to cross train in - there is great similarity to Kenpo.  The difference is they learn "the flow" first, and pull techniques out of the movement, while we pattern in movement in order to "forget" it later and just move correctly when needed.

Grappling, another can of worms.  I have done Silat with him, and was surprised at some of the similarities in terms of buckles, sweeps, takedowns, strikedowns and finishing moves.

THE DISCUSSION RUSHES BACKWARDS RAPIDLY.

Oss


----------



## Kirk (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *
> I have one of Danny Inosanto's senior students, Ray Parra, who has been in JKD, Silat, Escrima, Kali, etc., since the late 60's, teaching in the school where I am.  Guess what, he is surprised we check, use open hand strikes, buckle and sweep.  Gee, we sorta look alike, and move similarly.  He calls them different names, but moves well, intermittent, explosive, relaxed power ... the same thing that often defines the movement of an advance Kenpo practioner.
> 
> ...



I've been told that there is nothing that we do in Kenpo that is not a piece or part of some other system somewhere. What makes it different is the way it is organized and the respective value system that is attached to it.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 9, 2003)

... and I wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Hee


----------



## kkbb (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> For about the 95th time, I think it's great that you're doing what you're doing.  Mazeltov. Just quit telling the rest of us about the "holes," the impracticality, of what we're doing, eh?*



Ditto!  

Now did every one read the above? 

I think it means: Cross train until you puke!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2003)

Dear MJS:

Sorry, but I believe I can let the language of your writing stand for itself.

Now on to the stuff. What I'm interested in are some actual issues: a) sheer efficiency as a martial arts goal; b) "fighting," vs. "self defense;" c) the teachability of a martial art; d) the claims inherent in kenpo.

Here's a good quote--and hey! it's from, "outside," kenpo--I may be too closed-minded, too twisted, too filled with holes to cross-train, but I do cross-read now...my first instructor wouldn't let me read about martial arts for over five years:

"One factor in the favor of t'ai chi as a fighting art is that it does not encourage students to harbor misconceptions about their fighting ability. Compare, for example, the student who has been studying t'ai chi for six months with a Karateka with the same amount of experience.

The t'ai chi student has perhaps learned half a slow-motion form and some basic sensitivity exercises, none of which give him any impression they could be used in a fight. By contrast, the Karateka has probably been taught several punches and kicks, and is busy developing speed and power. He may also feel that he can use these same techniques if the need arose.

Unfortunately, if the karateka  were actually to face an accomplished fighter, he would very quickly find out the illusory nature of his skills. The fact is that the acquisition of fighting skills in any martial art takes years rather than months to achieve."

Nigel Sutton, "Applied T'ai Chi." Boston, Rutland, Vermont, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1998, 12-13.

Now beyond the all-too-common "internal," art snobbery, and the fact that kenpo offers something different, there's an interesting idea here--and it has to do with realism. And it has to do with the rejection of sheer efficiency, on practical grounds.

Later in the same book, Sutton has a very, very interesting explanation of why bother with forms...and just incidentally, before anybody starts up with "it's t'ai chi! it's the opposite of fighting!" about the most striking thing about the book is its similarity to kenpo.

Thanks.

PS: Here'd be an interesting thread: Did Bruce Lee ruin martial arts in America?


----------



## roryneil (Jul 9, 2003)

mcrobertson

I agree with realistic perception of true fighting skills in an actual fight. I know I have years of skill sharpening ahead of me, and I don't picture myself walking down a dark alley pulling off a Perfect Weapon against 4 armed attackers. I do however believe that good stances were taught from day 1, and that at least I have learned how to take a punch!!


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 9, 2003)

Guys:  Are we ever going to give this a rest?  How many times are we going to say: "I've said this before and I am done talking about this topic?"  Let's agree to disagree and move on to other topics.


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

You will get out of it what you put into it.  We are all different and all have different ways of training and of being able to retain the material taught.  Tai Chi has obviously been taught for many years, and I'm sure people can use its principles to defend themselves.

Fighting vs SD- Are you referring to fighting as in NHB or as in a fight on the street?  When in a confrontation, that is considered a fight, and you are using your skills to defend yourself.  The teachability- well every art can be taught but I suppose it all comes down to the individual person and how well they can grasp the material taught.

We all want to believe that the skills that we have attained over the years will be able to save our butts, but we also can't forget that there is always someone who is better than us.  Just because someone trains for 5 yrs and someone for 1, does that mean that they 5yr student will always will? No.  The person with the least exp. at times will be your hardest opponent, as they have not acquired the self control as the higher ranked student.

Also, in regards to fighting.  How much time is really needed before you are 100% ready to fight?  A police officer gets training in the academy with a handgun.  The time spent in the academy is less than a year.  So, is the cop really prepared to go on the street and maybe have to rely on that gun to save himself with only 6 months of training?  He needs to train on his own and keep his skills fresh.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Guys:  Are we ever going to give this a rest?  How many times are we going to say: "I've said this before and I am done talking about this topic?"  Let's agree to disagree and move on to other topics. *



OFK- I agree.  Some people here though just like to keep beating the issue.  Honestly, I think it died a long time ago.

MJS


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *... and I wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> Hee *



The whole thing about the orgins of Mr. Parkers systems through the years is very interesting to me. I have heard some of the seniors who were around during its creation speak about the "the requirements in the new system" , "the then new Long 4"
and so on. Of course only the folks that were around back then can answer with any bit of accuracy, but it is still interesting to ask questions about the orgins and influences of the different systems that Mr Parker created through the years? Why the changes from what his instructors taught him and so forth? 

Sticky hands is a great example because isnt this a Wing Chung drill? We all know that Mr. Parker worked around folks like Jimmy Woo and Bruce Lee but was this something that Mr. Parker received from his instructors lineage, or was it influenced from someone else along the way? How much of Kenpo today is pure Kenpo from what Mr. Parker learned from Chow, and how much of is other things that he discovered? Where did he get his inspiration for the Kenpo system?

It must have been have been an interesting time around Mr. Parker as he evolved the Kenpo system and developed its overall structure back in the "old days." 

Comments and Ideas???


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fastmover _
> 
> It must have been have been an interesting time around Mr. Parker as he evolved the Kenpo system and developed its overall structure back in the "old days."



Yes!  I totally agree.  I would have loved to be there to be a part of it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2003)

Just to pick up one thread...teaching...no, it doesn't come down merely to the individual.

Sure, in a general sense--but only in a general sense--we learn (and we teach) what we are willing to learn, what we have the talent to learn, what we have the time and resources to learn. One of the very best I'll ever see in kenpo taught himself...in a sense, anyway. He used the videos.

But saying, "Well, the students can find their way for themselves," or, "Well, the students can do what I did..." no. Not how teaching works. This is precisely what's wrong with the idea of discarding bits and pieces of the kenpo system on the grounds that we--as individuals--don't like them, or don't find them practical. That may--I doubt it, but maybe--be a solid choice for us. It's a disaster for students, and it's the source of a lot of the problems in kenpo...

Then too, there's the fact that, "the self," supposed to be making all these decisions is actually under re-construction in martial arts...if they're any good, that is. If that isn't a big part of the point, well, just buy a gun. It's quicker.

And to reiterate something I've already written, there is no point at which  anyone becomes 100% ready to defend themselves. Personally, I'm working on a "B+," average...


----------



## lonekimono (Jul 9, 2003)

HAT'S off to larry,,wait a min that's and old song from the 60's
well this happens to me every now and again,
what i want to say is hat's off to OFK for saying what he did 
and to that 1955 baby   for putting his 2 cents in,now for the real question, what the hell is wrong with kane's face????:shrug:


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lonekimono _
> *now for the real question, what the hell is wrong with kane's face????:shrug: *



I was wondering the same thing...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *Please, enlighten me. *


When you are ready Weedhopper, when you are ready. :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 10, 2003)

Here ya go,

Something that Mr. Rainey told me once. "it's all theory until you make it work". That pretty much says it all! No matter what you are doing, it is theory until you apply it effectively. Practice cross train learn a thousand and one techniques and exstentions, forms, sets etc... but until you make it work it is theory. And just because you make it work once on one guy/gal doesn't mean that it changes anything. It doesn't prove or disprove the theory of that sequence of motion or basic of motion. Why, because you have only made it work that one time with that one person, and there are billiions of people in the world that you have not applied it to. You may however say the statistically speaking this works the majority of the time..... well that's enough blather happy training, whatever it is that your doing.

Have a Great Day!!  :asian: :asian: 

P.S. I wish I wrote as elequently as Mcroberts but I don't so suffer through it.


----------



## Doc (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> But saying, "Well, the students can find their way for themselves," or, "Well, the students can do what I did..." no. Not how teaching works. This is precisely what's wrong with the idea of discarding bits and pieces of the kenpo system on the grounds that we--as individuals--don't like them, or don't find them practical. That may--I doubt it, but maybe--be a solid choice for us. It's a disaster for students, and it's the source of a lot of the problems in kenpo...
> *


I totally agree. Most are not qualified to speak of anything beyond their own experiences, and the results is limited to the same parameters. 

The idea of the student deciding "what is useful" is a "quck fix" commercial perspective that does have validity, but only as it relates to that student, and should have no impact on the art itself other than possible ultimate dilution. 

The contamination comes when unqualified individuals purport what they do as "kenpo," when in fact it is their personal self created style with elements of kenpo.

But at the same time we must purge ourselves of the notion that "kenpo" as most know it, is a single entity with a specific curriculum beginning, middle, and end. It's very conceptual nature places its actual curriculum taught, in the mind and hands of its many individual teachers with very little consensus on anything other than  certain like concepts, and even they are not understood the same by everyone.

The competent who actually teach the "system" are rare. Most are teaching personal interpretations of vague "manuals" as a guide and no references beyond what they themselves were supposedly "taught."

A copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a bad original.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *When you are ready Weedhopper, when you are ready. :asian: *



Seig,

The Trash Heap is very likely referring to Whip, Hammer and Thrust as being the only 3 moves in Kenpo.

Mr. Hancock has apparently written a good deal about this and based his teachings on it.

Something about asking a Trash Heap for enlightenment strikes me as very peculiar.  I meant to post this sooner.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *Seig,
> 
> The Trash Heap is very likely referring to Whip, Hammer and Thrust as being the only 3 moves in Kenpo.
> ...



You forgot Lift

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *You forgot Lift
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> ...



But then that would make 4...not possible!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 10, 2003)

Lift, what lift? I think your going off some outdated info. Lift and thrust are the same thing.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *But then that would make 4...not possible!   *


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Lift, what lift? I think your going off some outdated info. Lift and thrust are the same thing. *



Ok, that's what I got from the tapes and the way he explains it they can't be the same.     Care to fill me in.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 10, 2003)

lift is only an aplication of thrust. Most of the time Thrust represents a pushing concept. The muscles that push are the same that "lift". Its easy to get alittle mixed up because most of the time pushing and or hammer grafted into a push is what a martial artist strives for. Rather than continuing with a 4th catagory he merely accepted that lift and thrust are the same; however, the point of origin (hand or hands at your side) creates a unique application for thrust. To be just a little complex here, there are three types of thrust. Pure, hammer grafted into a thrust, and lift ( that is as your arm naturaly extends to perform thrust, an upward or lifting motion is created and can be of use in striking targets). Personaly I have heard very little on the subject of lift. I find it funny to hear that Kenpo 2000 has that identity. however, for at least the lats eight years or so I've not heard the term within the organization.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *lift is only an aplication of thrust. Most of the time Thrust represents a pushing concept. The muscles that push are the same that "lift". Its easy to get alittle mixed up because most of the time pushing and or hammer grafted into a push is what a martial artist strives for. Rather than continuing with a 4th catagory he merely accepted that lift and thrust are the same; however, the point of origin (hand or hands at your side) creates a unique application for thrust. To be just a little complex here, there are three types of thrust. Pure, hammer grafted into a thrust, and lift ( that is as your arm naturaly extends to perform thrust, an upward or lifting motion is created and can be of use in striking targets). Personaly I have heard very little on the subject of lift. I find it funny to hear that Kenpo 2000 has that identity. however, for at least the lats eight years or so I've not heard the term within the organization. *



Lift is what keeps an aircraft in the air.   Thrust is what projects it to meet the requirement of lift.    Two completely different principles.   OK, I may be wrong, but I could've sworn it was on the video.     

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 10, 2003)

you are right and that is probably why the whole concept was created; however, the physical motion of the human body only utilizes certain muscles and with that the muscle groupings for thrust and lift are the same. I personaly consider a lift a bad or altered thrust. I don't own the video you are refering to, but you will find that you won't hear that sort of info on future videos. Since I'm on the subject of videos I will say the operation has become much more professional since my haphazard involvment so as far as quality of production goes, I feel you will not be disapointed.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *you are right and that is probably why the whole concept was created; however, the physical motion of the human body only utilizes certain muscles and with that the muscle groupings for thrust and lift are the same. I personaly consider a lift a bad or altered thrust. I don't own the video you are refering to, but you will find that you won't hear that sort of info on future videos. Since I'm on the subject of videos I will say the operation has become much more professional since my haphazard involvment so as far as quality of production goes, I feel you will not be disapointed. *



Not to be a spoil sport but I'm sitting here lifting my arm and thrusting my arm and feel distinct differences in the muscle groups used.     

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 10, 2003)

I agree that the grouping are "altered" but because of the limited use of lifting in martial arts it wasn't deserving of its own catagory. I'm just speculating on the reasons for discontinuing the concept here. Truth be told you can break down the big three H,T, and W and not only derive lift but thrust in reverse and hammer in reverse which are also distictly different muscle grouping orders. You are on the right track as to why Skip spoke of lift in the first place but in essence, save for L, TiR, and HiR there are only three. We can make it as simple or as complex as we want but we strive for simplicity.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I agree that the grouping are "altered" but because of the limited use of lifting in martial arts it wasn't deserving of its own catagory. I'm just speculating on the reasons for discontinuing the concept here. Truth be told you can break down the big three H,T, and W and not only derive lift but thrust in reverse and hammer in reverse which are also distictly different muscle grouping orders. You are on the right track as to why Skip spoke of lift in the first place but in essence, save for L, TiR, and HiR there are only three. We can make it as simple or as complex as we want but we strive for simplicity. *



OK

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Kirk (Jul 10, 2003)

Hey Clyde, check your PMs


----------



## Seig (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *When you are ready Weedhopper, when you are ready. :asian: *


Oh that's very clever   If you really believe that you are only rehashing three moves in the entire system, then you are not paying close enough attention.


----------



## ArnoldLee (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *Not to be a spoil sport but I'm sitting here lifting my arm and thrusting my arm and feel distinct differences in the muscle groups used.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> ...



It might help to think of lifting and thrusting as to how the initial muscular twitch in the shoulder is transferred down the arm.  

Since thrusting uses a relayed method of power delivery and lifting uses a fused method they will (naturally) feel different further down the arm (which I'll bet is what you are experiencing).  

I believe what Touch O Death is referring to is that at the shoulder where the motion originates, Thrusting and Lifting should feel identical.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 11, 2003)

OK.

Then on Thundering Hammers for example.

Is that first strike with your Right Arm

a) Thrusting into your opponent
or
b) Lifting into your opponent

I think it can be said to be doing both or either if I understand correctly.  Clue me in.  Is this a good example?

Which of Mr. Hancock's videos discusses this?
Would this be the best one?
http://po.kenpo2000.com/item103.htm

I also see this one which looks good as well
http://po.kenpo2000.com/item119.htm


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *
> 
> I also see this one which looks good as well
> ...




The 3 key executions From Maui even!  Wow!


----------



## cdhall (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *Oh that's very clever   If you really believe that you are only rehashing three moves in the entire system, then you are not paying close enough attention. *



Seig:

While I believe that Touch of Death is not a palatable source of  information, Mr. Hancock is widely regarded in high-esteem and this idea comes from him.  

It may be a very simple idea to get you to improve your execution of everything, I can't say. Maybe not 3 moves.  It may be more accurate to say 3 Methods of Execution.

But sometimes I say that there is only One Technique in Kenpo-Move and don't violate a concept or principle.

I don't think that this is wrong, but it is very sophisticated and of course it will not help anyone learn anything and requires one to know all the concepts and principles before it has any meaning.  Anyway, I'm not saying that I know everything yet, but I'm sure you get my point.  This is an interesting hypothesis I like to think about.  It usually starts or complicates a discussion and that is what I use it for.

So I imagine that Mr. Hancock has done something similar.  I personally want to look into his stuff.  Mr. Conatser has told me it is "different" from most of what I've seen or at least from how I've mostly seen stuff presented.

Off the top of my head are not all the blocks either Thrusting or Hammering?  Could not a Push Down Block (like the end of  Long 1) be characterized as a "slow" downward thrust? What about a vigorous one? I know there is one in a technique somewhere, I know there is one in Two Man set but I can't think of where one is in a technique. 

I'm just thinking out loud now. I should shut up.  
:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 11, 2003)

Just to throw my own bit into this particular pot of stone soup, I'd argue that a) this idea limits everything in kenpo to striking, b) this way of describing strikes suggests that power is generated only from the upper body.

Note that a) only the arms are being discussed, b) there are a lot of comments such as, "in the shoulder...where the motion originates."


----------



## roryneil (Jul 11, 2003)

If you are going to 3, why not just 2, push or pull


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by roryneil _
> *If you are going to 3, why not just 2, push or pull *


Very good question. Hammering should get its own catagory purly because that is the way our muscles work. It is a very specific downward motion that enhances thrust but is in fact not a push. I think it could probaly be broken down into just the two but the study of when a hammer ends and when the thrust begins is vital to extracting speed and power from the grafting of the two.


----------



## ArnoldLee (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *OK.
> 
> Then on Thundering Hammers for example.
> ...



The right arm strike is a thrust grafted into a lift.  In other words the motion starts out relayed and then the arm fuses.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson_
> *
> 
> Just to throw my own bit into this particular pot of stone soup, I'd argue that a) this idea limits everything in kenpo to striking, b) this way of describing strikes suggests that power is generated only from the upper body.
> ...



This idea is not limited to striking.  ANY motion can be referenced in this manner (including grappling), choose any technique and it can be broken down in this way.

Yes only the arms are being discussed... for now.  The reason the shoulder is being addressed is to simplify the explanation.  I like to use the saying "isolate then integrate".  You can Hammer, Thrust, Whip and Lift with the legs as well.  Power can be generated from the shoulders, the hips, the ground etc. and it can all be tied together.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Just to throw my own bit into this particular pot of stone soup, I'd argue that a) this idea limits everything in kenpo to striking, b) this way of describing strikes suggests that power is generated only from the upper body.
> 
> Note that a) only the arms are being discussed, b) there are a lot of comments such as, "in the shoulder...where the motion originates." *



Well said.  But some of this would still apply I think even though the first strike of Thundering Hammers for example is done with a shuffle/back-up mass.  Here the lower body is generating power but you are still striking with the arm.

Although the knee strikes could well be characterized as Thrusts and Hammers I think.

Anyway, good points.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Just to throw my own bit into this particular pot of stone soup, I'd argue that a) this idea limits everything in kenpo to striking, b) this way of describing strikes suggests that power is generated only from the upper body.
> 
> Note that a) only the arms are being discussed, b) there are a lot of comments such as, "in the shoulder...where the motion originates." *


Robert,
we are not discussing the legs but the principle is the same. A front kick would sound like this... to pick up the knee is a thrusting motion; extending your leg to kick is a hammer; the return motion is hammer in reverse to a thrust in reverse.
sound complex?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 11, 2003)

Uh...sorry, but lifting my knee is not merely a thrust.

Part of what I'm trying to say is that the priority is backwards: to state the obvious, power (and techniques) are built from the ground up, not the shoulders down. or they should be. 

I don't see the "first move," of the ideal-phase Thundering Hammers as that right hammer/forearm. I see the "first move," as, "step foward with your left foot into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a left inward block."

I also note that even when the legs' action is being described here, it's done with a focus on the periphery of the body--the extremities--rather than the center, a focus (which, I believe, is ultimately incorrect) which is the same as the focus on the upper body--but rotated ninety degrees, if that makes any sense.

What's left out, in other words, is circular motion. I know--the hips' turning will be described as a whip, yes? I'd argue that its EFFECT may be whipping, but that the motion is different. 

I'd also argue that while kenpo may certainly (and should, at times) be boiled down to basic principles/actions/keys, there is also a danger of losing the distinctions--the differences--upon which recall, and knowledge, are based.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh...sorry, but lifting my knee is not merely a thrust.
> 
> Part of what I'm trying to say is that the priority is backwards: to state the obvious, power (and techniques) are built from the ground up, not the shoulders down. or they should be.
> ...


If it makes you feel any better we dont classify inward blocks as a hammering motion either( that is contact is usualy made on the thrusting half of the move ). If you don't want to break down the art into proximal and distal motion that is totaly up to you; however, to assume we only pay attention to the distal is an erronious assumption. SO, the hammer is the proximal and the thrust is distal in the "inward block." Of course, your legs play a part in the execution. I haven't read a single post on the subject that suggested otherwise. Reject the whole concept if you like, it makes no difference to me.
Sean


----------



## ArnoldLee (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> Part of what I'm trying to say is that the priority is backwards: to state the obvious, power (and techniques) are built from the ground up, not the shoulders down. or they should be.
> *



You are right, in execution the power is generated from the ground.  However for the purposes of this discussion and my reply to Clyde and Cdhall I was assuming that they can do a good forward bow and was just concentrating on the shoulder muscles.



> *
> I don't see the "first move," of the ideal-phase Thundering Hammers as that right hammer/forearm. I see the "first move," as, "step foward with your left foot into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a left inward block."
> *



Again correct, it should have been worded "second" move.  I believe what was trying to be conveyed was the first major move that the right hand makes



> *
> I also note that even when the legs' action is being described here, it's done with a focus on the periphery of the body--the extremities--rather than the center, a focus (which, I believe, is ultimately incorrect) which is the same as the focus on the upper body--but rotated ninety degrees, if that makes any sense.
> *



Absolutely.  The better a student gets at kenpo their motion will become more proximal to the center of the body.  As a Pilates instructor I cannot emphasize enough how important the core is in generating force.  That said I believe that the point of the Thrusting discussion is being missed.  If you are talking about the shoulder the focus IS being directed closer to the center of the body.  The shoulder being more centered to the core than the extremeties.  We can discuss this further from there and expand to the body (hips, etc.)



> *
> What's left out, in other words, is circular motion. I know--the hips' turning will be described as a whip, yes? I'd argue that its EFFECT may be whipping, but that the motion is different.
> *



The hips turning can be a whip but may be different depending upon where you initially begin.  Also circular motion is not left out.  It can be viewed from a diagonal plane.  If you look at the motion three dimensionally you can see it.



> *
> I'd also argue that while kenpo may certainly (and should, at times) be boiled down to basic principles/actions/keys, there is also a danger of losing the distinctions--the differences--upon which recall, and knowledge, are based.
> *



Yes absolutely.  However this particular idea or model of motion (hammer, thrust, whip) in fact distinguishes and differentiates the muscular motion and can help a student recall exactly what they are supposed to do with their body.  If anything I'd argue that putting in artificial differences in techniques and/or motions will create a condition where a student may recall a technique but doing so will ultimately be less useful for them since they will not be (or at least much less be) able to recreate that move outside of the context of that technique.



> *
> Uh...sorry, but lifting my knee is not merely a thrust.
> *



Actually I'd have to agree with T'O'D with on this.  Lifting the knee can be defined in this context as thrust.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *Oh that's very clever   If you really believe that you are only rehashing three moves in the entire system, then you are not paying close enough attention. *


To whom?


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2003)

The American Kenpo Karate International (A.K.K.I.) is headed by 9th Degree Black Belt, Paul Mills. The schools and clubs of the A.K.K.I. have very skillful and knowledgeable instructors that teach the art as outlined by Mr. Mills. The A.K.K.I. has Ed Parker's Kenpo System at it's base, but has expanded the curriculum to include many new empty hand, stand up grappling, ground fighting, knife (single & double) and stick (single & double) material that was not previously addressed in Mr. Parker's system.



This is something that I found while looking at a few Kenpo sites.  I thought that the last few paragraphs say quite a bit!  This is exactly what I was talking about.  He teaches the base style and added things that were not addressed by Parker.  Does anybody fault him for doing this?????

Mike


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 13, 2003)

Oh.... I imagine if you look hard enough you might find someone.  Also, I could be wrong here, but isn't Mr. Mills a 10th degree now?


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2003)

Just to clarify.  This is something that I came across.  I took it word for word from his site.  As for being a 10th or 9th....I have no idea.

Mike


----------



## cdhall (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Just to clarify.  This is something that I came across.  I took it word for word from his site.  As for being a 10th or 9th....I have no idea.
> 
> Mike *



I just now saw this post, I'm not sure what all you had posted previously but as far as public info from the AKKI site:

http://www.akki.com/indexs/indexpage.htm
Paul Mills
President & Founder
10th Degree Black Belt 

http://www.akki.com/indexs/indexpage.htm

March 2003 AKKI Las Vegas Camp Recap
By Bruce Smith

...Mr. Elsasser called Mr. Mills up to the stage and explained to him that the entire Board of Directors of the AKKI and all representatives, and members of the AKKI had gotten together, discussed and agreed that it was time for Mr. Mills to take the next step for the betterment of the AKKI. Mr. Elsasser explained that Mr. Parker stated that no student(s) may promote an instructor, but the board, reps and members may Sanction and stand behind this promotion, which is exactly what the AKKI has done....

Personally I've seen a few minutes of some video of Mr. Mills in action and, well, he certainly appears to have "the goods."  And I think the theory of him pursuing evolution of the system is great.  He seems well-suited for it.  As long as he keeps the original curriculum as the base and point of reference, then I think he is also doing his students a great service.

Just my opinion.  
:asian:


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *I just now saw this post, I'm not sure what all you had posted previously but as far as public info from the AKKI site:
> 
> http://www.akki.com/indexs/indexpage.htm
> ...


Actually he is "interpreting" the conceptions he learned, not "evolving" commercial Kenpo. He is doing what notables like Larry Tatum amd others have been doing for years. Everyone by design in motion-based kenpo is capable of interpreting concepts, but some do it much better than others, and some are just awful. He, and others, are doing just what Parker intended. Those who like his interpretation are entitled to bestow any honors they feel comfortable with.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *Actually he is "interpreting" the conceptions he learned, not "evolving" commercial Kenpo. He is doing what notables like Larry Tatum amd others have been doing for years. Everyone by design in motion-based kenpo is capable of interpreting concepts, but some do it much better than others, and some are just awful. He, and others, are doing just what Parker intended. Those who like his interpretation are entitled to bestow any honors they feel comfortable with. *



He is not doing what Larry is doing, not even close.     Mr. Mills does not teach the EPAK curriculum, he teaches one of his own design.    Please do not imply they are doing the same thing.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *He is not doing what Larry is doing, not even close.     Mr. Mills does not teach the EPAK curriculum, he teaches one of his own design.    Please do not imply they are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say or imply anything. I said they are both "interpreting," I didn't say they were teaching or interpreting in the same manner.


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 14, 2003)

It seems to me they are both doing something completely different as well.  Just putting my 2 cents in.  For what it is worth now a days.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *It seems to me they are both doing something completely different as well.  Just putting my 2 cents in.  For what it is worth now a days.    *



Ditto again.  

I did not get that Doc said they were doing the same curriculum, but that they were both doing at least some stuff that they had developed or interpreted themselves.

Same general idea, different specific application/outcome.

Mr. Mills has clips on his website.  They are not EPAK techniques.  And I've heard Mr. Mills has re-written the AKKI manuals and may not even teach the EPAK stuff as Mr. Parker left it.

On the other hand, I thought Mr. Tatum did teach the 32 technique curriculum as outlined in Book 5.  Clyde would know.  Is that right?


----------



## MJS (Jul 14, 2003)

Looking at the material that Mr. Mills teaches, he does list tech. that are the same in EPAK.  However, he does mention that he has modified them and even added to the material that he teaches.  Its still the same stuff, meaning that he is still doing Kenpo, but just going about it in a different way.  

Mike


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Jul 14, 2003)

> Actually he is "interpreting" the conceptions he learned, not "evolving" commercial Kenpo.



Yeah okay, sure.  Whatever you say.



> Mr. Mills does not teach the EPAK curriculum, he teaches one of his own design. Please do not imply they are doing the same thing.



For once I agree with Clyde.  Please don't lump us in with them.



> Mr. Mills has clips on his website. They are not EPAK techniques. And I've heard Mr. Mills has re-written the AKKI manuals and may not even teach the EPAK stuff as Mr. Parker left it.



The clips that are up right now are short and sweet and do not give any real insight into AKKI philosophy, movement, tactics, or whatever else you want to call it.  I believe the webmaster is in the process of redesigning the site and adding new clips.  Yes Mr. Mills has decided to keep some of the Parker tech names but the execution of the techniques is something that most have not seen before.  

Is Mr. Parkers system the base of AKKI kenpo?  Come on, of course it is.  It's just that Mr. Mills has decided to combine what he learned from fighting, with what he learned from Parker and give it to us, his Assoc. members.  The AKKI has gotten a bad rap from just about everybody, and honestly we could care less.  I've learned more from the short time I've been around Mr. Mills than I could have ever imagined. 

Ron, It's no secret that you don't like Mr. Mills.  If you want to call what we do, commercial kenpo or motion kenpo then fine.  Do what you want.  The fact of the matter is that it works and it works well.  Some people will like it and some people won't, just a fact of life.  It's really no different than when Parker was King.



> Its still the same stuff, meaning that he is still doing Kenpo, but just going about it in a different way.



well apparently MJS has the right idea.


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Yeah okay, sure.  Whatever you say.
> For once I agree with Clyde.  Please don't lump us in with them.*


*
I suggest you re-read what I said. The information used as a base must be interpreted to be effective, and that is what I said. I never suggested everyone was doing the same thing, and in fact have always stated just the opposite.




			Ron, It's no secret that you don't like Mr. Mills.
		
Click to expand...

Mr. YAhoo, you don't know me that well but it is clear that I probably out rank you and am significantly older than you. As far as my relationship with Paul, you apparently don't know that either. I go back to his beginning with Parker and he and I seem to get along fine in spite of your uniformed opinion.



			If you want to call what we do, commercial kenpo or motion kenpo then fine.
		
Click to expand...

I did not say that either. I said most interpretations are based on the commercial kenpo structure. There was kenpo before that model you know. Perhaps you should be a bit more objective in your reading.



			Do what you want.  The fact of the matter is that it works and it works well.
		
Click to expand...

I never gave my opinion on its effectiveness either, we were having a discussion on interpretation and evolution. My assumption is, if you do it you probably feel it is effective. I have no problem with that.



			Some people will like it and some people won't, just a fact of life.
		
Click to expand...

Once again I gave no opinion either way. Perhaps you should ask questions if you are unsure what someone is saying. I do Mr. YA hoo. Thank you for the discussion.*


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

evolve   

1.  To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2.  To work (something) out; devise.
3.  To undergo gradual change

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

interpret 

1.  To explain or tell the meaning of 
2.  To conceive the significance of; construe.
3.  To present or conceptualize the meaning of
4.  To offer an explanation.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 


Clearly when there is a history of a body of work already in existence, it may be interpreted by many who are familiar with elements of its concepts. However to evolve the work of another suggests you are privileged to all aspects, and elements of that body of work. Simply, you cannot evolve what you do not know. I dont think anyone can lay claim to knowing all that Ed Parker knew and did over his lifetime in his own personal evolutionary process. 

When I mentioned nerves strikes, and slap-checks ten years ago, some called me obscene names for suggesting there were elements of kenpo I was taught, that they or others were not familiar with. Somehow they felt that all students of Parker were exposed to the exact same information, over his lifetime and many relationships. The arrogance here is the assumption they know all that Parker knew, therefore they could state emphatically what is or isnt in his evolution of kenpo. Only an idiot would make such a statement, which is why only I speak in personal terms.

But from the perspective of an art, that does not preclude an individual taking what he/she knows and evolving their own style based on someone elses work. So you can evolve YOUR OWN style based on what Parker taught YOU, and that process requires you interpret Parkers information, as YOU know it. But the end product is YOUR personal evolution or artistic style, and NOT an evolution of Parkers work. Artistic Evolution is common where an individual may draw from many sources or from specific parts of the same source to suit personal preferences of presentation and design.

Therefore, as artistic expression, you do not evolve the works of Ed Parker. YOU either present it as it was presented to YOU, or take that presentation and evolve YOUR own style.

Hard science however does not allow much room for evolution, and only limited interpretation. Science is bound by physical laws determined and set by nature, and may not be changed by personal desire. However the presentation of the science can and may be influenced by personal preferences.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Jul 14, 2003)

> I suggest you re-read what I said. The information used as a base must be interpreted to be effective, and that is what I said. I never suggested everyone was doing the same thing, and in fact have always stated just the opposite.



There is nothing wrong with what I read, I just don't want to be lumped in the same category as Clyde.



> Mr. YAhoo, you don't know me that well but it is clear that I probably out rank you and am significantly older than you. As far as my relationship with Paul, you apparently don't know that either. I go back to his beginning with Parker and he and I seem to get along fine in spite of your uniformed opinion.



I'm sure that you are older than a lot of people, and according to you all rank is honorary anyway so what's your point?  

All ranting aside, I'll play along.  Sure you didn't say anything about Mr. Mills in your last post, but I've been around long enough to have read some of your other posts and that is the way you come across.  No, you didn't actually say that AKKI is motion kenpo or commercial kenpo ( or whatever other catchy little title you can come up with to belittle the other styles), but it is what is inferred, otherwise there would be no reason to attribute such titles to everyone besides your little group (do you see what's inferred there?).  You routinely suggest that the readers of this forum are ignorant and that they should take reading comprehension courses; when, in most cases, they are dead on.


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *There is nothing wrong with what I read, I just don't want to be lumped in the same category as Clyde.
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly you are hostle for reasons of your own machinations, and even extend that hostility to people like Mr. O'Briant who hasn't really been a party to such negative responses in this thread.

It is also quite clear you have made decisions about what you think people mean, and what they do with no real knowledge. Something I haven't done. You seem to exhibit that insecure "circle the wagons mentality" when there is actually no one attacking.

I have never made an evaluation or criticism of what Paul teaches because I have never seen it, however I do know Paul and what he does. The same holds true for Larry Tatum except he has many more high profile black belts including, Barabar Hale, Bryan Hawkins, Diane Tanaka, Jeff Speakman, Muhammad Tabatabi, etc that allows evaluation on some level possible. Still I confine my comments to him directly and not his students.

My suggestion is you continue with what you find validity and make no assumptions about who, or what I am or mean, and how you may address me. Tell Paul I said hello unless you read something negative into that as well.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Jul 14, 2003)

> Clearly when there is a history of a body of work already in existence, it may be interpreted by many who are familiar with elements of its concepts. However to evolve the work of another suggests you are privileged to all aspects, and elements of that body of work. Simply, you cannot evolve what you do not know. I dont think anyone can lay claim to knowing all that Ed Parker knew and did over his lifetime in his own personal evolutionary process.



Are you suggesting that Ed Parker knew everything there was to know about the MA?  Mr. Parker seems, at least to me, to have been a perpetual student.  He continued to learn and change things from the time he began to the time of his death.  People will, undoubtedly, argue about the effectiveness or progressive commercialization of his art, but that's a whole different thread or twelve.

It was CDHALL who suggested that Mr. Mills was evolving the art not me.  Something I'll address in a minute.  



> Taken from the AKKI Website:
> The slogan of the AKKI is: Higher Proficiency Through Innovation
> 
> Webster's New World Dictionary 3rd Ed.
> ...



This is all the AKKI has claimed.  Mr. Mills used what he learned from Mr. Parker as a base and then added on, changed, added, subtracted, modified, whatever words you choose to use, to create the system he teaches the AKKI.  Mr. Mills isn't a very outspoken individual, he doesn't have to be, his ability speaks for him.  



> 3. To undergo gradual change


Guess what?  That is what is going on throughout kenpo right now and it will continue to happen when we are all gone, so I guess evolution kinda snuck in huh.


> It is also quite clear you have made decisions about what you think people mean, and what they do with no real knowledge.



The same could be said of you.  



> I have never made an evaluation or criticism of what Paul teaches because I have never seen it, however I do know Paul and what he does.



Does anyone else see a problem with this statement?  



> My suggestion is you continue with what you find validity


I'm sure I will


> and make no assumptions about who, or what I am or mean, and how you may address me.


feel free to do the same


> Tell Paul I said hello unless you read something negative into that as well.



I will pass along your "Hello."


----------



## Doc (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Are you suggesting that Ed Parker knew everything there was to know about the MA?  Mr. Parker seems, at least to me, to have been a perpetual student.  He continued to learn and change things from the time he began to the time of his death.  People will, undoubtedly, argue about the effectiveness or progressive commercialization of his art, but that's a whole different thread or twelve.
> 
> It was CDHALL who suggested that Mr. Mills was evolving the art not me.  Something I'll address in a minute.
> ...


?


----------



## MJS (Jul 14, 2003)

I personally, know nothing about Mr. Mills.  I'm only going on what I've seen here and what I've seen on his site.  He has obviously trained with Parker for quite a while.  Granted, he is not teaching the material exactly the same way as he learned it, but he pretty much is doing what Parker did when he was learning...he changed the material to suit him better.  I realize that change is not something that is widely accepted, especially on this forum, but he is still promoting the art that Parker taught.  He might not be going about it in the same way as others, but he's doing it in his own way, and should not be looked down upon for doing so.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh...sorry, but lifting my knee is not merely a thrust.
> 
> Part of what I'm trying to say is that the priority is backwards: to state the obvious, power (and techniques) are built from the ground up, not the shoulders down. or they should be.
> ...


Robert,
My last answer to your question may have sounded a bit snotty. First of all we do not call turning the hips a whip. Lets isolate thrust... What ever you think makes a good thrust to include whatever you believe about where you generate power is thrust. The same holds true for hammer and whip. Pick any tactic you like be it offensive or defensive and that specific move will fall under one of the three catagories, unless of course you graft two toguether which would then be a sub catagory that has its own list of tactics that fit the situation. You've suggested that the whole concept is distal to what should be happening. I say that if a whip, hammer, or thrust occurs that lacks a principle you think it should have then you can tack that up to being a bad Hammer, Whip, or Thrust. We are reading from the same list of principles that everyone else is; however, every move you can possibly make fits into the catagory of Launch, hammer, thrust, whip, and be neutral. Lastly even if you don't believe that a knee stike is a thrust, it is what ever you may call it, therfore the concept would fit perfectly under your standard of defenition. ( even though it is a thrust mind you) I get the feeling you are rejecting the idea because I am associated with it. To this I say, hate the messenger not the message.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2003)

Actually, Sean, I didn't even notice that you posted it. I simply responded to what I read--which struck me as wrong, on the grounds (as I originally wrote)
it very strongly seemed to me to emphasize the movements of the extremities. As, I might as well add, I think that whole vocabulary does. 

I also agree with Mr. Chapel--I think it's dead right to argue that there is a difference between adapting kenpo to oneself and teaching that as the right way to do kenpo, and actually, "evolving," kenpo. (Personally, I don't do either.) But as for associating anyone's name with this, no--I've no idea who does what outside my own little bailiwick, and quite frankly I don't usually really care.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Actually, Sean, I didn't even notice that you posted it. I simply responded to what I read--which struck me as wrong, on the grounds (as I originally wrote)
> it very strongly seemed to me to emphasize the movements of the extremities. As, I might as well add, I think that whole vocabulary does.
> 
> I also agree with Mr. Chapel--I think it's dead right to argue that there is a difference between adapting kenpo to oneself and teaching that as the right way to do kenpo, and actually, "evolving," kenpo. (Personally, I don't do either.) But as for associating anyone's name with this, no--I've no idea who does what outside my own little bailiwick, and quite frankly I don't usually really care. *


Robert,
Well then to that, I say, your assumptions on the subject are mistaken; because, each "method of execution" requires the use of your whole body while pinpointing point of origin and taking it from there. The vocabulary only suggests that from a certain point of origin your extremity and body will move according to the natural dynamics of that position. I'm quite aware of your position on non-Tatum Kenpo; however, I would like to point out that the principles of which I speak are detailed in your system somewhere. I mean I'm sure "point of origin" is payed some lip service... I would hope anyway. I would also hope you are familiar with combat considerations. We may focus on something more than you and visa versa but we are not changing anything just redefining the same old Ed Parker's Kenpo.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2003)

My, "position on non-Tatum kenpo?" Sigh. I coulda sworn I just wrote that I didn't know all that much about what went on out there in The Big Kenpo World...but I'll try, and hope for a courteous response.

Could you maybe explain two phrases you used: 1) "pinpointing point of origin," and 2) the "natural dynamics of that position?" 

Could you also perhaps say something about my basic point: that the language seemed to overemphasize the upper body and the extremities?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *My, "position on non-Tatum kenpo?" Sigh. I coulda sworn I just wrote that I didn't know all that much about what went on out there in The Big Kenpo World...but I'll try, and hope for a courteous response.
> 
> Could you maybe explain two phrases you used: 1) "pinpointing point of origin," and 2) the "natural dynamics of that position?"
> ...


Robert,
The terms used describe the position you weopon is in before you start the motion. Hammering with the fist suggests you are in a guard position or your hands are above your shoulders. Whipping suggest that your weopon is across your center line and are making an outward strike as a result. Thrust suggest your fist is in position to make that push away from your body toward a target. Your body will aid your strikes as you see fit. because you are starting in one of these points of origin your body will move in certain patterns. Hence the natural dynamics from each point of origin. There are three in case you lost count. My language only emphasizes a persons point of origin and it doesn't dicount lowerbody motion at all. Yes distal guides the proximal; because, you can only start from the position you are in at any given moment. This is why positon beats maneuver, target, weopons, angle, and cover.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jul 15, 2003)

It must be in the water.


----------



## Sigung86 (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *It must be in the water. *



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Doc (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> *:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: *


Never have I seen some with the serious inability to communicate and respond to simple discussions. It is as if you are talking to yourself. No response or understanding of what was actually said. Reading comp 101 must be taking some serious hits. Or as the Duke earnestly said in the classic "El Dorado" when Bob Mitchum blew a series of lines that ultimately remained in the film, 

"Is it me?"

If it is I apologize.


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> * I realize that change is not something that is widely accepted, especially on this forum, but he is still promoting the art that Parker taught. *


* 

Really?  I haven't noticed it like that...:shrug: 





			He might not be going about it in the same way as others, but he's doing it in his own way, and should not be looked down upon for doing so.
		
Click to expand...


I haven't seen anyone say anything bad about him, for any reason.  But maybe I missed that conversation.*


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *Really?  I haven't noticed it like that...:shrug:
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, let me re-phrase that.  Nobody has said anything directly about his personality, but they have spoke in a negative way about his art.  Just because it is not taught the way Tatum does his, does that mean that Paul Mills teaches anything less effictive?  Like I said before, its the same stuff, just put together differently.

MJS


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2003)

Uh...Sean, like all English teachers I can count to three. Of course, beyond that I can't answer for. 

From the way you phrased your last response, it looks as though you're agreeing with what I wrote about the over-emphaasis on the arms and upper body. I guess I'm misreading.

And writing as a teacher of writing--lots of adjectives, and technologized language, are often signs that some concept hasn't been analyzed sufficiently.

Then too, writing as a bit of a theorist, it is dangerous for one's concepts to take the idea of, "nature," in human beings without about a pound of salt. It's why it's good to explain, rather than invoking, "nature," as though everybody agreed on what, "nature," was.

Sometimes, I'm even wary about the ideas of, "natural motion," upon which I rely. For example, a lot of the early techniques in kenpo rely upon the idea of flinching, and adapting the, "natural," flinch into a defensive response.

When I was about nine, I got into a snowball fight after Sunday school--saw this one big one coming at me from about fifty feet away--looked it all the way in, didn't move a bit...it hit me right in the eye.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 15, 2003)

huh?, I thought I just said there was no emphasis on one or the other and that you are limited to moving from where ever a weopon happens to be; so, methods of execution start from that point. Your perception of our art being distal is eronious. Your addiction to the abstruse gets in the way of master key basics.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2003)

Uh...Sean, maybe it's about time for me to drop this--however, I will say that I'm not sure what's all that abstruse about a post whose major points hinged on the words, "flinching,"and, "snowball."

As for the point about nature, well, I guess it's a bit out there. So to be clearer--one of the hallmarks of essentialist/idealist philosophies is the refusal to explain terms, and a fall-back on unanalyzed ideas such as, "nature." For example, partiarchy--the silly notion that "men"are superior to, "women," rests upon ideas of either a) "biology,"or b) "religion," that are usually kept beyond analysis. After all, if they got analyzed, they would quickly fall apart (if supposed to be biological, a real look at their science would expose them as false)....or be exposed as demanding adherence to a particular religion.

I'd still be interested in seeing some of your terms better defined: I simply am not acquainted with them.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 15, 2003)

I admit I was a little lost on that snowball thing so I decided to jab to see what would happen. Which terms are confusing you?
I would be happy to attempt an explanation. Just bear in mind that I don't have a whole lot of reference material so I will be free-wheeling it. I heard the word abstruse on Regis and Kelly and I thought it might mix things up a little. It seemed to fit based on your suggestion that we are over simplifying.
Sean


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 16, 2003)

Throughout this thread there is post after post from those that
state without reservation that Kenpo is not lacking and it
is all inclussive system. Yet when someone like Mr Mills and others
applies the principles of Kenpo and creates a curriculum with 
for example Knives, clubs and ground work this philosophy 
is wrong? These same folks start screaming this isnt Kenpo?

Consider within Kenpo, it does have a complete alphabet 
of motion and principles that can be applied multi-dimensional. 
I believe this to be the core strength of Kenpo.

So let me ask this question, what is Kenpo? Is it the principles
that make Kenpo or is it the sequence of movements?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 16, 2003)

Fastmover:  That sounds like the start of another thread...


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 16, 2003)

Sorry.......... I thought it would go well with the idea of change and
with everyone screaming about the same subjects spilling over
various threads, I thought I would try to keep the idea of 
change consolidated. 

If the MODS want to start another thread with this then so be it,
but their going to do so at the risk of starting another thread
on the same subject. In other words Ill let them be the bad guys...so folks will yell at them and not me!! lol!!

Be Good


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 16, 2003)

Fastmover:  Not sure if trying to define what is Kenpo is the same as crosstraining/grappling.  I think if we keep our heads up and our egos down, it could be an interesting and constructive discussion.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2003)

Egos?? What egos?  None of that here!!LOL!

Just kidding OFK!!


Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 16, 2003)

when your arm is bent, grows long, and then short again, that is Kenpo.


----------



## Kenpomachine (Jul 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Fastmover:  That sounds like the start of another thread... *



There's already one thread on what is kenpo, as well as another on what is not kenpo. It was like one month ago or two, me thinks...


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 17, 2003)

Methinks it was called "What makes it kenpo?" and methinks mestarted it.  

The best answer I could get was "an eclectic system that incoporates a multi-strike format, using a mix of linear and circular movements."  

My favorite answer is an old joke:  "KENPO:  _noun._   "A hawaiian art of drumming that replaces the drum with the human body."

 

~TT


----------



## Kenpomachine (Jul 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *My favorite answer is an old joke:  "KENPO:  noun.   "A hawaiian art of drumming that replaces the drum with the human body."
> 
> 
> ...



:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 19, 2003)

[QUOTE

The best answer I could get was "an eclectic system that incoporates a multi-strike format, using a mix of linear and circular movements."  
[/QUOTE]


Don't anyone tel Howard Silva that! Man he'll get pissed and start on a rant you don't want to hear about eclectic crap....

 :asian: :asian:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 21, 2003)

Hey Sumdumguy:  It's not the style that's eclectic. It's the vocabulary!


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 21, 2003)

Do tell OFK?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 22, 2003)

OK, Here I go getting in trouble again...

According to Webster's dictionary, eclectic = selecting or made up of what seems best of varied sources.

IMHO, While Kenpo does borrow heavily from various sources (Kosho Ryu, Kung Fu styles, etc.), So much of EPAK is home-grown straight-out-of-Parker's-imagination.   I think Kenpo is a very original martial art.  I think it is much more original than many other Asian arts where lineage and cross-style linkage is more evident in the movement.  Kenpo's vocabulary though seems to borrow heavily from physics, Zen, and several other sources.  To me, Kenpo's moves seem natural, the explanations seem borrowed.  Just my opinion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 22, 2003)

To quote Zander, OK, now I'm sayin' something.

My understanding is that OFK (and do I wish that people would just use their names? yes) is correct. Kenpo isn't an, 'eclectic,' system, because 'eclectic," suggests simply borrowing bits and pieces from everywhere.

Beyond a few superficialities (multiple strikes, for example; the return and development of a checking system that had apparently been in traditional Chinese arts and got discaded; right-sidedness), what defines Parker's kenpo is the approach to self-defense, and the teaching system developed from that approach.

Basically, American kenpo was meant to be the truth about self-defense--or as I've said before, its basic, forms, sets, techniques, sparring drills, map out the genetic pattern that was present, but unorganized, in martial arts.

Is this true? Well, there's a question. 

There. That should get me in more trouble than you, OFK.


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 22, 2003)

Now why would either of you get in trouble? I simply wanted to see what the OFK had for an explanation for his previous comment. I have no doubt about the origins of the kenpo system or it's terminology. And for the most part I have to agree with OFK for the terminology part, that's where it can get really confusing though. If I take terms from one art (system) and use them in another art (system) along with factor "x" then I have created or formulated an eclectic system. But, If I take terms from a non-martial art discipline e.g. science, physics, then is it eclectic? I am not mixing two of the same disciplines e.g. Martial art systems, which the definition specifically states. HMMMMM? 

Have a Nice Day! 

P.S. Besides this forum is for discussion, not for the other crap that happens usually. And I don't really know either of you OFK or McRoberts so who am I to say....
:asian: :asian:


----------



## Rainman (Jul 23, 2003)

I vote eclectic...

American Kenpo is alive therefore adaptable.  The only limitations are the ones taught to you!  Once the cause and effect of movemnets are understood to a certain degree,  the sky and time are your only adversaries.  Of course you do need people to train with on a regular basis as well.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 23, 2003)

I think that Esoteric is the word we are looking for, not eclectic.

According to Webster...esoteric = designed for or understood only by the specially initiated.  Esoteric is a much better term for Kenpo than eclectic don't you think?


----------



## Brother John (Jul 23, 2003)

> I think that Esoteric is the word we are looking for, not eclectic.



No. Esoteric denotes information that only the 'elect few' are privy too... that's antithetical to Kenpo, especially regarding the attitude in which Mr. Parker put it forward... demystifying the mysterious... there are no secrets...etc. Mr. Parker strove to make Kenpo learnable by all, at any level of understanding. Esoteric information is by it's very nature difficult to obtain.



> I vote eclectic...


Rainman: Though I agree wholeheartedly with why you like the word 'eclectic', and at first blush when this word was brought up in the current thread I liked it too... it's actual denotation is not the best choice; I don't think. 
IF I understand your argument you are saying that because Kenpo is so very adaptable (my favorite feature of our wonderful art) that this makes it eclectic. That's not what eclectic means. Eclectic in expresion? Ok... maybe. But the word actually speaks to origins... and in this it is only partially true.

TO MY UNDERSTANDING (limited at best) Mr. Parker was influenced in the creation/inovation/foundation of Kenpo and the concepts that it was structured around. He was influenced by some oriental masters that he was privaleged to call friends and learned from them... but seems to me he studied the why more than the how. The actual material that comprises(ed) the origingal EPAK (as it was in 1991) was (I think) 99% Parker's brainchild/inspiration+perspiration. It's roots are different than it's outcome. (hope I'm being clear) It (the curiculum) wasn't drawn from many sources, as eclectic denotes... it was Drawn from The Grandmaster. 

Try these words on for size:
broad, comprehensive, inclusive; assorted, diverse, diversified
multifarious, multiform, varied

Kenpo is too distinctive and original to truly be 'eclectic'; regardless of the vein or paths it's undergone since Mr. Parker moved on to other duties.

Just my thoughts...and random/convoluted ones at that...
Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 23, 2003)

I agree with John. He seems to be right on the proverbial about, "eclectic," and, "esoteric." 

For similar reasons, "syncretic," would also be incorrect.

I'm not sure I see why we need so many of these one-word/three-word deals to describe everything...seems to me, it's a big dead end.

But if you want one here, try, "radical."


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 23, 2003)

Robert:  Got to disagree with you here.  Kenpo may have been radical in the 60's, 70's, and maybe even the 80's.  Now I'd have to say it is conservative, even traditional.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 23, 2003)

I think John makes a good point:  eclectic information went in, Kenpo came out.  That doesn't necessarily make Kenpo eclectic.  Its methods might be better described as varied or multiform.

Rainman,

I disagree with one word of your post only    It is not alive in the literal sense, and it is not alive in the Thorntonian sense.  I will agree that many train it alive, but I do not see this as an inherent quality of Kenpo, as it refers (in the thorntonian sense) to a training methodology that is outside of the curriculum itself.  If you can clarify a different meaning of alive, I will accept it. 

Robert,

I agree with OFK.  Kenpo was radical during its early development, just as the JKD concept was too.  Now it is conservative and (in many cases) traditional.  (The true JKD idea might still be radical, in the few instances in which you can find it, but I'm digressing).  

~TT


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Robert:  Got to disagree with you here.  Kenpo may have been radical in the 60's, 70's, and maybe even the 80's.  Now I'd have to say it is conservative, even traditional. *



It all depends on who's teaching the art to determine radical or mundane.   It's wayyyy friggin' radical to me, 

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Fastmover (Jul 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Robert:  Got to disagree with you here.  Kenpo may have been radical in the 60's, 70's, and maybe even the 80's.  Now I'd have to say it is conservative, even traditional. *





In some circles its traditional!!!


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 24, 2003)

Esoteric or eclectic? Ok I understand the arguments there. Alive, well in my humble opinion the system is given life through individuals! The system itself, all by itself in written form is no more than the ramblings of a mad man until you put it into action. Thus giving it life. I think that radical best describes the system for those few that are still truly analyzing the motion and principles within the system for the purpose of greater understanding and progress, whether personal or otherwise. As much as I hate to, I have to somewhat agree with Clyde on that. Oh, how's the cup check from friday night Clyde? Anyway it is obvious that we all (as kenpoists) have our own Idea's about what the kenpo system is and holds within it. The trouble is exspressing it in writing, wich I don't do well. 

Have a Nice Day!!!    :asian:


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sumdumguy _
> *Esoteric or eclectic? Ok I understand the arguments there. Alive, well in my humble opinion the system is given life through individuals! The system itself, all by itself in written form is no more than the ramblings of a mad man until you put it into action. Thus giving it life. I think that radical best describes the system for those few that are still truly analyzing the motion and principles within the system for the purpose of greater understanding and progress, whether personal or otherwise. As much as I hate to, I have to somewhat agree with Clyde on that. Oh, how's the cup check from friday night Clyde? Anyway it is obvious that we all (as kenpoists) have our own Idea's about what the kenpo system is and holds within it. The trouble is exspressing it in writing, wich I don't do well.
> 
> Have a Nice Day!!!    :asian: *



Were you there?   I didn't even know, you didn't introduce yourself.     Oh yea, got a few cup checks Friday nite.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 24, 2003)

Clyde:  

If you take "radical" to mean",  "awesome", "exciting", "intriguing", "fun" and "enlightening" then I agree with you.

But I always thought "radical" meant something with rapid sweeping change.  Kenpo was radical when Mr. Parker was defining and refining.  Now, we are into conserving a tradition.  It isn't radical anymore even though it can still be all of the other things in my first paragraph of this post.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Clyde:
> 
> If you take "radical" to mean",  "awesome", "exciting", "intriguing", "fun" and "enlightening" then I agree with you.
> ...



Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal 
Pronunciation: 'ra-di-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root -- more at ROOT
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased tissue <radical surgery>
2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4 slang : EXCELLENT, COOL


Hmm, don't know about you but Kenpo is radical to me.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jul 24, 2003)

Clyde:  You have a much better dictionary than I do.  Mine only had the definition about rapid change.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *Clyde:  You have a much better dictionary than I do.  Mine only had the definition about rapid change. *



http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm

Try this link

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## sumdumguy (Jul 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *Were you there?   I didn't even know, you didn't introduce yourself.     Oh yea, got a few cup checks Friday nite.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> ...



No, I was not there. But we have met at the IKC years ago, and I have many friends that were there, Dave Thompson was one. I heard a little about the Friday night work out.... 

:asian: :asian:


----------



## Kirk (Jul 25, 2003)

... in his last fight, "I knocked a guy out with a kick to the head."
Who needs submission?  The most gruesome t hing I ever saw 
was when Ken Shamrock reverse heelhooked a guy and twisted 
his foot the opposite way.  He basically just destroyed the guy's
lower leg."


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

And Mo Smith did the same thing.  However, he trained with Frank Shamrock to learn some defensive ground work.

Mike


----------

