# Continuing Evolution after SGM Parker's passing



## dubljay (Sep 9, 2004)

First and for most the intent of this thread is not to start a political/personal war here.  Furthermore I am basing this off of a somewhat limited knowledge of the history of EPAK and MR. Parker as well as my own opinion, so if any assumptions or information is inaccurate please let me know I was wrong.  With that being said:

 SGM Parker created a unique martial arts system by drawing from many sources.  His Kenpo Karate was very innovative for his time, and still remains to be a very powerful self defense art (in my opinion at least).  He updated martial arts training and tactics for the time period, namely the 1950's and 60's.  Under Mr. Parker's direction the art continued to change and evolve with the times.  

 From what I have observed there are some who remained in lockstep with the methods of teaching and tactics at the time of his passing.  There were others that continued to change the art to meet the needs of the times, while trying to maintain the traditions of old.

 My question is this:  Is holding the art in a somewhat stagnate pattern, Ridgley adhering to the way the art was when SGM Parker passed on in keeping with Mr. Parkers vision of the art?  Is someone who changes things, and innovates considered a non traditionalist when EPAK was a non traditional art to begin with, and if so when did EPAK become "traditional"?

 Thoughts, criticism, flaws of fact or logic are all welcome.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

It might help to answer if you'd be a little specific. Could you explain which teachers you mean? Which forms, techniques, etc., you find "rigidly," frozen, which which "innovations," you have in mond? For that matter, could you explain what you mean by, "innovation?"


----------



## Kalicombat (Sep 9, 2004)

In my opinion, people take the phrase "evolution of the art" all wrong. I dont think the intent was to keep changing the art to mean 'strip away' or 'eliminate' material. Fighting and self defense today, in 2004 is no different then it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. The same dynamics that a one-on-one or even a one-on-multiple opponent altercation that were in place in the 70's are still in effect today. The same challenges that our grandfathers and fathers faced against some scumbag intent on injuring or robbing them are the same challenges that we face. People, in general have not evolved to freakish sizes, strengths, or abilities in the last 30 years. However, some NFL linemen and the humongous size that they have become may be the exception. But, I understand they grow NFL linemen on a farm in the midwest somewhere. But I digress. 

For a practitioner of Ed Parkers American Kenpo to be qualified to start changing the art, or evolving it, he or she must do so from a completely informed and proficient opinion. That practitioner can not possibly hope to change the art with out learning the entire curriculum of EPAK. The problem is, people let their likes and dislikes enter into the equation. John "KENPO" Public may have wrestled in high school, or had his clock cleaned in a fight by a wrestler. So, he takes his green belt EPAK knowledge, marries it up with his wrestling knowledge, dumps the sets and forms, and has created a new Kenpo. Or a guy that has a bad back or a bum knee gets to a blue belt in EPAK and then decides that instead of strengthening his back, knee, etc., he will avoid those techniques that cause him discomfort. That is not evolving, but more like retarding the art.

The obvious distraction of EPAK is the vast amount of material contained in the curriculum. When some kid walks in to an EPAK studio and asks, "how long will it take for me to get a blackbelt", most dont like what they here. Especially when they can go around the corner and get a BB in a year or two from Sensi yada yada in Ancient-Counter-terrorism-flying-waterdragon-Original-Do or Sabumnim High Kickers Point-Sparring Ryu. 

Much like all things in life, there are no short cuts worth taking. Trust me, I know. I wasted alot of time trying to find them.



Yours in EPAK,
Gary C.


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 9, 2004)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> For a practitioner of Ed Parkers American Kenpo to be qualified to start changing the art, or evolving it, he or she must do so from a completely informed and proficient opinion. That practitioner can not possibly hope to change the art with out learning the entire curriculum of EPAK.



Though I'm sure that I'll get flamed for this from the "Kenpo Faithful", I suggest that what is being postulated here has been accomplished to a certain extent by individuals such as Chuck Sullivan & Vic LeRoux and David German. I'm not talking about their systems being the end-all in Kenpo, but these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art. Understand I'm not disparaging those who practice EPAK in its various forms, just giving folks something to think about.

Got my asbestos suit on, let 'er rip!

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## Big Pat (Sep 9, 2004)

Mr. Parson,

Good thoughts. I don't think I remember Mr. Parker criticizing anyone for "thinking outside the {kenpo} box" - as long as it was done in a logical manner. He enjoyed making people think. I know that he gave Mr.Sullivan and LeRoux his blessing to do their IKCA Kenpo. An interesting read on this subject is Mr. Bob Orlando's book, Martial Arts America-A Western Approach to the Eastern Arts. The book is dedicated to Mr. Parker.

EKP RIP
Big Pat
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

It might help if you could explain what this means:

"these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art."

What step? why's it logical? why greater practicality?


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 9, 2004)

bdparsons said:
			
		

> Though I'm sure that I'll get flamed for this from the "Kenpo Faithful", I suggest that what is being postulated here has been accomplished to a certain extent by individuals such as Chuck Sullivan & Vic LeRoux and David German. I'm not talking about their systems being the end-all in Kenpo, but these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art. Understand I'm not disparaging those who practice EPAK in its various forms, just giving folks something to think about.
> 
> Got my asbestos suit on, let 'er rip!
> 
> ...


OK, can't let this one ride without saying something LOL.    Logical step in practicality is not what the IKCA curriculum is about, I know, I was there when they created it.     Techniques are changed by those who don't or didn't get the info from their instructors, or, those who simply don't or won't understand the nature of the material given to them.   The EPAK system doesn't need to change, or evolve, it just needs to be refined, again and again.

DarK LorD


----------



## Seig (Sep 9, 2004)

Evolution for the sake of eveloution is silly. Nothing evolves unless there is a need for it. If you are learning the base art properly, and then refining it, you are not evolving the system, but yourself.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 9, 2004)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> I dont think the intent was to keep changing the art to mean 'strip away' or 'eliminate' material. Fighting and self defense today, in 2004 is no different then it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. The same dynamics that a one-on-one or even a one-on-multiple opponent altercation that were in place in the 70's are still in effect today. The same challenges that our grandfathers and fathers faced against some scumbag intent on injuring or robbing them are the same challenges that we face. People, in general have not evolved to freakish sizes, strengths, or abilities in the last 30 years.


True, people in general might not change, but the weaponry used over the years did change. Thus, if the choice of weapons and the technology to make them do change, it behooves the martial artists to understand how they are used and how to defend against them. People may argue a knife is a knife and a gun is a gun and how they are handled remain the same. Don't forget though, that weapons get more efficient through the years and differ according to region. 

I suppose it won't be much longer, if not already, for lazer to be a weapon for the common citizen. I haven't seen any martial arts training against/for that yet.

Now with Mr. Parker, he embraced weapons and understood the need to become proficient with them.  He also understood that Kenpo should be flexible enough to adapt, or as others have mentioned, the kenpoist learns to "think/act outside the box."

- Ceicei


----------



## Blindside (Sep 9, 2004)

Maybe it is the biologist in me, but I have a problem with the term "evolution" with regard to what I see in the martial arts, or more specifically in kenpo.

Evolution requires selective pressure, and I don't see much of that except for the selective pressure of the appeal to students.  

If you want to watch selective pressure on a martial arts (well martial sport), rent every odd number UFC and watch it.  Watch as the plethora of styles adapt to the rules of the game, and further adapt to the changes in the rules.  Now with the rules fairly steady, the fighters from all the camps fight relatively similar.  Some kick more, some strike more, and everybody grapples.  

What selective pressure is happening that kenpo has to adapt to?  What has really changed in the past 14 years, or 25/30 for that matter?  What I see going on right now is simply variation, without pressure there is no evolution.  Something has to come along and disprove some of these variations for anyone to say that they have "evolved" the art.

Just my opinion, and before I get accused of being a traditionalist, well, I'm far from it.  I'm the guy who is usually arguing for change in my school, but even then, all I am doing is creating another variation.

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Sep 9, 2004)

> True, people in general might not change, but the weaponry used over the years did change. Thus, if the choice of weapons and the technology to make them do change, it behooves the martial artists to understand how they are used and how to defend against them. People may argue a knife is a knife and a gun is a gun and how they are handled remain the same. Don't forget though, that weapons get more efficient through the years and differ according to region.



The Colt .45 automatic pistol was adopted by the US military in 1911, the difference between that pistol and a glock are fairly negligible with regards to self defense.  Revolvers basically haven't changed at all.  Alternately, show me a knife design that is more "efficient" than historical examples.  Sure there are probably more kerambits in the US than 15 years ago, but is the art of kenpo going to fundamentally be changed by their presence?  Now if everyone carried them....

Assuming that a laser is directional, and man portable, then the directive of "divert" doesn't change at all, nor do the subsequent steps.  

Lamont


----------



## dubljay (Sep 10, 2004)

Hmm perhaps I should have more carefully considered my approach to this topic before committing it to the forum.

 After having sometime to think about my post ( as well as have a great 2 hr work out) I guess what I really meant was to ask this:

 ** by traditional I mean no disrespect in any way, but what I the way I define it is that those who have broken from the exact art as Mr. Parker left it have sometimes are not considered EPAK, sometimes not Kenpo at all. (granted some situations that may be true) **


 Did EPAK transform from a practical street self defense art into a "traditional" system?

 From what I understand about Mr. Parker's intentions for his art, it was to make it practical for street application of the time.  Mr. Parker broke from tradition of martial arts of his time for street application of the 1950's.  So has EPAK become a "traditional" art that is no longer applicable to the streets of this century; where opponents and laws have changed?  Opponents have changed too.  In the 50's there was no UFC matches on Pay per view TV.  Today you have couch potatoes running around mimicking potentially lethal techniques with no knowledge or formal training.  Granted they my not be able use them as proficiency as a MA practitioner, but they still pose a threat.


 I apologize for lack of clarity and I appreciate everyone's input.

 Some days I think I should be kicked in the head before I open my mouth.


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 10, 2004)

> "these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art." What step? why's it logical? why greater practicality?



Robert, good to talk to you again. What I meant by the referenced statement is that I feel these individuals have taken the time to evaluate their chosen art and concentrate on application, meaning application as applied to the body of work as a whole. That to me is should be the "next step" when it comes to any martial art, and if done properly it's logical, and better application always translates into more practicality. We should always be asking ourselves as MA practitioners if what we've learned can be applied better, more efficiently. In reference to EPAK some have felt that it can be, while  others have decided to leave it "as is". Granted, the individuals mentioned took two different routes in that regard to making changes. German by adding elements of other arts to Kenpo; Sullivan and LeRoux by concentrating it.



> The EPAK system doesn't need to change, or evolve, it just needs to be refined, again and again.



Clyde! Why did I know this would draw you out of the closet?!?  It's my contention that in fact that's exactly what Sullivan and LeRoux did. Refine the art. I think what you mean is practiced again and again. Refining is the process of removing impurities and imperfections to arrive at a finished result, or at least one you're satisfied with. We can argue all day long about what Sullivan and LeRoux knew when they developed the IKCA curriculum. Been down that road before, and we're both firmly entrenched in our positions. Remind me sometime to tell you why I hold the position they did know the system (and it's not just because they said they did, I'm not that gullible).  BTW, whatever happened to your adamant stand on not posting anonymously? Are we not practicing what we're preaching? Surely not. (...and stop calling me shirley!)

Respects to you both,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Sep 10, 2004)

Ahhh...revisiting my favorite topic...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8597
artyon:  artyon:  artyon:


----------



## pete (Sep 10, 2004)

funny how everyone is all about 'thinking outside the box', without bothering to think inside the box...

pete


----------



## Kalicombat (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:"In reference to EPAK some have felt that it can be, while others have decided to leave it "as is". Granted, the individuals mentioned took two different routes in that regard to making changes. German by adding elements of other arts to Kenpo; Sullivan and LeRoux by concentrating it."

First and foremost, what the IKCA teaches is not EPAK. Period, no wiggle room at all. Secondly, Im not familiar enough with Mr. Germans curriculum to make an educated opinion one way or the other. 

Lets look at it from another perspective. As I understand it, the kenpo that SGM Parker was taught had very few techniques 
and very few forms. Very basic for what we EPAK practitioners of today would consider. Then, SGM Parker took that knowledge, expanded it, adapted it, made it grow, spread, not only in volume but in effectiveness. He added principles, concepts, experiences, formualted thought, and created EPAK. Then, when EPAK was still in it's infancy relatively speaking, Mr. Sullivan and Leroux took the system that Ed Parker created, stripped it, condensed it, or as some may say, refined it, to pretty much what it was before SGM Parker put his flavor to it. Thus, undoing all the work that SGM Parker put forth to create his system. Sullivan and Leroux didnt create anything except an association to blanket their stripped down version of what they knew at the time they broke off. Did they know the entire EPAK system as we know it today???? Different takes from opponents and proponents abound. It makes no difference to me weather they did or not, but,they are not current in the EPAK system, what with having refined it to their 55 techniques, 2 or so sets, and one long form, I dont think they'd have continued to keep up with EPAK. 

Different strokes for different folks, however, I cant seem to understand why they use SGM Parker references in their promotions, and his image on their website when they undid all that he created. If its a rose call it one, but if its something else entirely, dont call it a rose. 

I will go so far as to say that it is my opinion, that the IKCA curriculum is no better or worse then Ed Hutchisons Dragon Kenpo. Both are something completely different from EPAK, and neither should ever be represented as being EPAk, either by suggestion or out-and-out lies.  One final point. IF the IKCA was so adamant about wanting to condense the vast knowledge that they had ammassed  to make it more user friendly and easily learned for the benefit of all the IKCA students of the future, why did they have to use the black gi, the tiger and dragon references, the similar but not exact patch as the IKKA crest, why did they use SGM Parker quotes in their ads, pics of SGM Parker and Mr. Sullivan in the 60's in their ads? Would they be the success today had they totally went forth with their own merit, not riding the coat tails of SGM Parker and the system he created? Highly Doubtful. Guess we'll never know. 


Yours in Kenpo,
Gary Catherman


----------



## bzarnett (Sep 10, 2004)

IMHO, if you feel that the foundation of American Kenpo Karate is flawed, than evolution is the correct term. If you feel the foundation is stable and correct, than refinement is a better term.

For me, the logic and philosophy of American Kenpo is the foundation and not the self-defense techniques, freestyle, forms, and sets. I agree that these are critical exercises in American Kenpo and have been well-developed but they are not the foundation. I personally subscribe to the Skip Hancock Kenposcope approach where Attitude, Logic, Basics, and Fitness are the foundation.

In a poorly explained example, the inclusion of BJJ-like ground fighting would be a refinement to my concept of positions in American Kenpo.

Cheers!


----------



## USKS1 (Sep 10, 2004)

Hello,

I don't post a lot on here, but I think it is kinda funny all the talk about who is doing what Mr Parker passed on, and who is not.

How many schools teach the exact AK ciricullum as outlined in Infinite insights volume 5? And if so, why was Mr Parker continually modifying his system if he felt it was finished and ready to set into stone?.. The arts were not created in a vacuum or meant to stay in one. 
Are you going to tell me that Mr Sullivan and Mr LeRoux do not know the American Kenpo system as Ed Parker taught it?

If I understand correctly the entire system is taught by 5th degree BB.

I have seen the footage of Mr Parker promoting Mr Sullivan, Mr Quinones, and Mr LeRoux to 7th, 6th, and 5th degree BB respectively. This was in the late 80's. Would Mr Parker promote someone who was not qualified??

How much did American Kenpo change between then and Mr Parkers passing?

My core system is Kajukenbo. I started studying with the IKCA about a year ago to look at the system and add what I felt was good to my current ciricullum. I see us all as Kenpo family, and whatever was good from AK or IKCA, Lima Lama or any other system of Kenpo would fit well into my teaching and development as a Kenpo instructor. I have also studied AK so I do have a pretty good idea of what to look for as a comparison.

Over the course of that year I have found the IKCA material to be as solid as anything else out there, and in reality do you need 156, 200, 300 or 600 techniques to be rounded?? When do the cookie cutter techniques end and when does spontanaety start?

Does the IKCA teach the neutral bow differently from AK? Not from the comparisons I have seen.

That goes for the other footwork, transitions, stance changing, punches, kicks etc... They may not train every basic found in AK, but what they have chosen to teach is nearly identical to AK, but the ciricullum is indeed streamlined.

I have never heard Mr Sullivan or LeRoux call the IKCA program American Kenpo. I have heard it called Chinese Kenpo, or modern Kenpo, based in American Kenpo, but not AK.. How could it not have AK influence.. Mr Parker was their teacher!

What I have learned about them is that they treat their association members with respect, and provide feedback to school owners like myself on programs and business ideas to help our schools grow.. How many of the existing Kenpo associations / orgainizations do that? Most give you a id card, take your check, and add you to an instructor list.. That's about it. Oh I forgot, they also send out your renewal letter once a year.

Why do they refer to Mr Parker in print and in the history and photo segments of thier site?? Pretty easy, he was their teacher. I would call that respect and giving credit where credit is due, not riding on his name for their benefit.

But is it still Kenpo??
Don't just take the word of people who post on the net, look for yourself and check out the videos or better yet, if you are in California go stop by and talk with them yourself.... It may not be the giant that AK has evolved into, but it is Kenpo. It works for me..

Keep up the hard training.

Dean


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2004)

USKS1 said:
			
		

> How many schools teach the exact AK ciricullum as outlined in Infinite insights volume 5? And if so, why was Mr Parker continually modifying his system if he felt it was finished and ready to set into stone?.. The arts were not created in a vacuum or meant to stay in one.



Yes, Parker was making mods to the system, so if thats the case, why do people look down on others for making their own mods?  Almost sounds like a double standard...its ok for him but not ok for someone else??

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 11, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Yes, Parker was making mods to the system, so if thats the case, why do people look down on others for making their own mods? Almost sounds like a double standard...its ok for him but not ok for someone else??
> 
> Mike


Not everyone is qualified to make the changes, if they were, Kenpo would still be in a pristine state, problem is, most think they're qualified, and I've seen plenty who shouldn't be teaching at all, but do.

Let me give you an example.   Are you going to let someone with a few years under their belt as a mechanic make major structural changes to your car's chassis and suspension, OR, given the oppurtunity and same price, will you take it to the engineer that designed your car, or worked as an apprentice with that engineer?    

DarK LorD


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Not everyone is qualified to make the changes, if they were, Kenpo would still be in a pristine state, problem is, most think they're qualified, and I've seen plenty who shouldn't be teaching at all, but do.



Agreed!  I guess I should have clarified my post a little better.  What I was referring to was an individual person, doing it for their own benefit or the benefit of their school.  I was making a slight ref. to the evil word crosstraining, without having to actually say it.  



> Let me give you an example.   Are you going to let someone with a few years under their belt as a mechanic make major structural changes to your car's chassis and suspension, OR, given the oppurtunity and same price, will you take it to the engineer that designed your car, or worked as an apprentice with that engineer?



Definately the person that designed the car.

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 11, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Agreed! I guess I should have clarified my post a little better. What I was referring to was an individual person, doing it for their own benefit or the benefit of their school. I was making a slight ref. to the evil word crosstraining, without having to actually say it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not cross-training, it's Cross-REFERENCING LOL.

DarK LorD


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 11, 2004)

bdparsons said:
			
		

> Clyde! Why did I know this would draw you out of the closet?!?  It's my contention that in fact that's exactly what Sullivan and LeRoux did. Refine the art. I think what you mean is practiced again and again. Refining is the process of removing impurities and imperfections to arrive at a finished result, or at least one you're satisfied with. We can argue all day long about what Sullivan and LeRoux knew when they developed the IKCA curriculum. Been down that road before, and we're both firmly entrenched in our positions. Remind me sometime to tell you why I hold the position they did know the system (and it's not just because they said they did, I'm not that gullible). BTW, whatever happened to your adamant stand on not posting anonymously? Are we not practicing what we're preaching? Surely not. (...and stop calling me shirley!)
> 
> Respects to you both,
> Bill Parsons
> Triangle Kenpo Institute


BTW, after another extensive conversation with Bill, he is the anomaly in the IKCA LOL.   He actually understands what he's doing with the material, something I can't say for most.

DarK LorD


----------



## Brian Jones (Sep 11, 2004)

I have been reading this with some interest.  I am not sure if I can agree with your analogy.  Are you saying that there is no possiblity that the apprentice can improve or innovate on an original design? What do you do when the "chief engineer" has passed?  If you were flying across country would you want to fly in a plane designed by the Wright brothers, or the chiefengineers at Lockheed.  Please know I am not comparing EPAK in any form as outdated. I am just questioning the analogy.

Brian Jones


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 11, 2004)

Brian Jones said:
			
		

> I have been reading this with some interest. I am not sure if I can agree with your analogy. Are you saying that there is no possiblity that the apprentice can improve or innovate on an original design? What do you do when the "chief engineer" has passed? If you were flying across country would you want to fly in a plane designed by the Wright brothers, or the chiefengineers at Lockheed. Please know I am not comparing EPAK in any form as outdated. I am just questioning the analogy.
> 
> Brian Jones


Did you notice how I phrased the question?    Not every engineer is qualified to make the changes, but spending many years with the engineer will at least give some credibility.    Most of the high ranking guys in Kenpo (including myself) spent only a few hours with Mr. Parker due to locations around the country and globe, either flying in to take lessons for a couple of hours, or bringing him to them for a few hours each year.   There are less than a handful that lived right around the corner, literally, from him, and spent as many hours with him each year than their own families, over many, many years.     

DarK LorD


----------



## Brian Jones (Sep 11, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree that not everyone who is "evolving" Kenpo is doing so, or is qualified to do so.  I also see some whom I think are doing just that. Time in the shop at the feet of the master is going to give creedence to what you have to do or say.

Brian Jones


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> It's not cross-training, it's Cross-REFERENCING LOL.
> 
> DarK LorD



 :ultracool 

Mike


----------



## marshallbd (Sep 11, 2004)

bdparsons said:
			
		

> Remind me sometime to tell you why I hold the position they did know the system (and it's not just because they said they did, I'm not that gullible).
> 
> Respects to you both,
> Bill Parsons
> Triangle Kenpo Institute


I sure would like to hear why....
Beau


----------



## Kalicombat (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:"That goes for the other footwork, transitions, stance changing, punches, kicks etc... They may not train every basic found in AK, but what they have chosen to teach is nearly identical to AK, but the ciricullum is indeed streamlined."

See, this is the point exactly. What they teach is a watered down version of EPAK. They didnt create anything. They took what they thought was important and discarded all the rest. I will put it out to you in an analogy the way I see it: 20 years ago, there were no Harley clones. none of the Japanese bike companies had a cruiser class bike with the exception of the Honda V-45 and V-65 Interceptors, and they were at best not Harley-Like in their appearance. Then the Japanese bike co's got the idea to make their version of a Harley. They worked at it for about 13 years and now they finaly got it down. To the untrained eye, alot of the cruiser Japanese bikes look like a Harley. Every wanna-be and his dog have a Vulcan, Roadstar, Intruder, etc.... and deck themselves out in leathers, bandanas, chain wallets, and the rest of the "biker" gear that they paid way too much for. They look the part. But, to those of us that know the difference, these guys are a joke. They are "posers", to borrow a word from my yute. The dont want to purchase a real Harley, dont want to make the commitment to own a Harley with all that it entails. They'd rather spend close to the same price to buy a replica that they neither have to mess with as far as maintanence nor tweak to get more horsepower and performance out of. They are happy accepting what some engineer decided was all of a Harley that was important enough to clone. 

Same goes for the IKCA. They don the uniforms, with the Ebay bought flame patch on the right chest, red electrical tape announcing their rank, have pics of SGM Parker hanging in their schools, talk about the good old days in Pasadena, but they dont want to make the commitment to learn the entire EPAK system. They are content with medicority. I have heard, "those Ikca guys are good at point sparring", "they are creating spontaneity", "they dont need all the techniques", "their master form is awesome", yada, yada. I say SO WHAT. The true test of a system isnt the trophies, the beauty of its form, nor the half baked explanation of why they decided to rip the system apart. You show me these same sparring monsters with a broken bud bottle lodged in their grill and then well see how spontaneous their system is. 

THe thing that the IKCA'ers are missing is that the time spent going through the system, learning all the material including basics, forms, sets, techs, saying, pledges, lingo, etc....  that is the most appropriate way to pay homage to SGM Parker. Not by hanging his image on their wall. Wearing their knots to the side. Just like the image of a Harley Rider can only be achieved through actually riding a Harley. You cant sit in a bar talking aobut how great Harley Davidson is and then walk around the corner and hop on your Vucan and scoot into the night. You cant say how great SGM Parkers' innovation to the MA world was, and then show your year and a half of expertise by knocking out the master form in 3 minutes, with your blackbelt wrapped around your waist.

All this debates filters down to one common denominator. THE BENJAMINS. Not that there is anything wrong with making a buck, but to water sometning down, to cheapen it, to add some Shaefer light to your keg of Heinekin so it can sell more pitchers is just not right in my book. 

Im not going to change your opinion, and trust me, your not gonna change mine. Ill keep on doing things the way I see fit, and you do the same. There in lies the dicotomy in all this discussion, but hey, its fun to go back and forth, and I enjoy a good banter session as much as the next guy. Just dont be naive. I know some IKCA'ers, and Ive seen a few more but am not aquainted. Ive yet to see any that Id want watching my back. Im sure there are some real bad a$$ members, but I havent had the pleasure as of yet.

Yours in Kenpo,
Gary Catherman


----------



## USKS1 (Sep 11, 2004)

Gary,
Good discussion.
I understand your stand on EPAK, and as you said it's your opinion, and I can respect that.
I still hold my position also, there is nothing wrong with agreeing we disagree.

Like I said before my core system is Kajukenbo, and there is nothing watered down there.. I ride the Kajukenbo Harley to work every day, and it is a bumpy ride, but one I wouldn't trade for anything. Our Kenpo roots all run back to the same tree. I try to learn as much as I can from all the Hawaiian rooted systems. What can I say it is just my thing.

I find the IKCA material is a good addition to what I do, and what can I say I like Vic's ideas and always have a good time talking with him. He has treated me with nothing but respect and courtesy and that means something to me.
For me that is half the party, enjoying the company.

The IKCA works well for me as an addition to my core. Nuff said on that.

I see you live in Texas, and train Kali. If you ever get down near Austin, drop me a line, and we can get together, train, talk some story, burn some rattan, and maybe knock back a cold one or two. 

Take care

Dean Goldade

www.kajukenbo-combatives.com


----------



## dubljay (Sep 11, 2004)

After reading the posts here, and taking some time to organize my thoughts on this matter here is my oppinion.

 The heart of AK lies in the rules and principles that are intended to keep people from leaving themselves open to attack.  (i.e. the 180 rule, keeping hands at 180 degrees for to cover high and low ect, bracing anglels, angles of incodence, and the many more I am still discovering.)

 The analyitical and  "scientific" approach Mr. Parker brought to the arts allowed him to teach many people rules and then allowing them to tailor techniques using those rules to their individual body mechanics.  I feel that some branches of Kenpo are nothing more than a particular person taking the base ideas that they modified to meet their own body and adding to them, then calling that something new.  Thats all well and good, but if they don't teach their students the base ideas w/out the instructor's personal tailoring they are leaving potential gaps in their student's defenses, simply because no two people move in exactly the same way.

 If the unmoddified rules are taught then no matter the name of techniques or how the forms look then in my unqualified opinion it is still AK.

 It seems to me Mr. Parker's main concern was application in the street, keeping students safe when using their skills in real street combat.  It is not the "hows" of his system but the "whys".

 Again this is my less experienced and unqualified opinion.

 -Josh-


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 11, 2004)

USKS1 said:
			
		

> Gary,
> Good discussion.
> 
> I find the IKCA material is a good addition to what I do, and what can I say I like Vic's ideas and always have a good time talking with him. He has treated me with nothing but respect and courtesy and that means something to me.
> ...


You see, that's the difference between staunch Ak'ers and the rest, we believe everything is in our core system and haven't the need to branch out other than to make the discovery that it was in Kenpo to begin with, we just didn't see it, or, didn't have a competent instructor to guide us that way.   As I told MJS earlier, it's not cross-training, it's cross-REFERENCING.   If you feel the need to branch out from your core system, something is lacking in either your understanding of your system, unqualified instructors, or an incomplete art, or, a combination of all the above.

DarK LorD


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 11, 2004)

Why spend years trying to discover the, say, grapling aspects, of Kenpo, when a system such as BJJ is nothing but tested and refined grappling? Couldn't exploration in other arts be a tool for your kenpo discovery process?


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 11, 2004)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> First and foremost, what the IKCA teaches is not EPAK.


Mr. Catherman,

The IKCA has never claimed to teach EPAK. In fact they go out of their way to call what they teach "Chinese Kenpo" in deference to the terminology Ed Parker himself used originally. 



> Then, when EPAK was still in it's infancy relatively speaking, Mr. Sullivan and Leroux took the system that Ed Parker created, stripped it, condensed it, or as some may say, refined it, to pretty much what it was before SGM Parker put his flavor to it. Thus, undoing all the work that SGMParker put forth to create his system. Sullivan and Leroux didnt create anything except an association to blanket their stripped down version of what they knew at the time they broke off. Did they know the entire EPAK system as we know it today???? Different takes from opponents and proponents abound. It makes no difference to me weather they did or not, but they are not current in the EPAK system, what with having refined it to their 55 techniques, 2 or so sets, and one long form, I dont think they'd have continued to keep up with EPAK..


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I have a couple questions: At what time frame are you speaking of EPAK in its infancy? At what point did Sullivan and LeRoux decide to modify the system? Was it while EPAK was in its "infancy"? Surely youre not speaking about the late 1980's, just a couple of years prior to Mr. Parker's death? Or is it that you think EPAK really didn't begin to "grow" until Mr. Parker died. Granted the dispute over what they knew and didn't know will not be resolved here, some have there take, and most are guessing and speculating. They themselves will admit they are not currently active or "current" in EPAK. (Although I am interested what you mean by "current" given the wide disparity of how EPAK is being taught nowadays.) Sullivan and LeRoux have chosen to walk a different path; it works for some, not for others. To conjecture whether they "would have continued to keep up with EPAK" is pointless, they chose not to a long time ago. 



> I cant seem to understand why they use SGM Parker references in their promotions, and his image on their website when they undid all that he created. If its a rose call it one, but if its something else entirely, dont call it a rose.


Undid, modified, improved upon is the debate this is degenerating into as opposed to the original intent of this thread. But whatever position you take, they learned from Mr. Parker and do their best to honor him. There is one point everyone who is down on the IKCA, including you fails to mention: Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux did what they did with the full knowledge and support Mr. Parker. Don't know if that counts for anything in your book, but that's the first thing I considered when I thought about the IKCA, out of respect for Mr. Parker.



> I will go so far as to say that it is my opinion, that the IKCA curriculum is no better or worse then Ed Hutchisons Dragon Kenpo. Both are something completely different from EPAK, and neither should ever be represented as being EPAK, either by suggestion or out-and-out lies.


You know, up to this point youve been bordering on reasonable discourse, now youre grasping at straws. Again, show me where the IKCA claims to be EPAK. By the way, whos lying? 



> One final point. IF the IKCA was so adamant about wanting to condense the vast knowledge that they had ammassed  to make it more user friendly and easily learned for the benefit of all the IKCA students of the future, why did they have to use the black gi, the tiger and dragon references, the similar but not exact patch as the IKKA crest, why did they use SGM Parker quotes in their ads, pics of SGM Parker and Mr. Sullivan in the 60's in their ads? Would they be the success today had they totally went forth with their own merit, not riding the coat tails of SGM Parker and the system he created? Highly Doubtful. Guess we'll never know.


Maybe because black gis are what they had been using for years; Maybe because they understood and agreed with the tiger and dragon representations? Youre right though there is such a striking similarity between the two patches, I can hardly tell them apart. Coattails, yeah, nobody else has done that. (Some call it giving credit where credit is due.)




> See, this is the point exactly. What they teach is a watered down version of EPAK. They didnt create anything. They took what they thought was important and discarded all the rest.


Always liked the phrase watered-down which is actually the process of adding to so as to make something stretch further or last longer. Youre right they didnt create anything; they developed, some say refined something from existing material. The same way martial artists have been doing for centuries.



> I will put it out to you in an analogy the way I see it: 20 years ago, there were no Harley clones. none of the Japanese bike companies had a cruiser class bike with the exception of the Honda V-45 and V-65 Interceptors, and they were at best not Harley-Like in their appearance. Then the Japanese bike co's got the idea to make their version of a Harley. They worked at it for about 13 years and now they finaly got it down. To the untrained eye, alot of the cruiser Japanese bikes look like a Harley. Every wanna-be and his dog have a Vulcan, Roadstar, Intruder, etc.... and deck themselves out in leathers, bandanas, chain wallets, and the rest of the "biker" gear that they paid way too much for. They look the part. But, to those of us that know the difference, these guys are a joke. They are "posers", to borrow a word from my yute. The dont want to purchase a real Harley, dont want to make the commitment to own a Harley with all that it entails. They'd rather spend close to the same price to buy a replica that they neither have to mess with as far as maintanence nor tweak to get more horsepower and performance out of. They are happy accepting what some engineer decided was all of a Harley that was important enough to clone.


Excellent analogy Especially the part about maintenance and tweaking. If Im not mistaken the reason that HD has struggled through the years is due to the dissatisfaction, especially among HD owners, with these very subjects. But then again there will always be the HD faithful, more power to them. The traditionalists if you will.



> Same goes for the IKCA. They don the uniforms, with the Ebay bought flame patch on the right chest, red electrical tape announcing their rank, have pics of SGM Parker hanging in their schools, talk about the good old days in Pasadena, but they dont want to make the commitment to learn the entire EPAK system. They are content with medicority. I have heard, "those Ikca guys are good at point sparring", "they are creating spontaneity", "they dont need all the techniques", "their master form is awesome", yada, yada. I say SO WHAT. The true test of a system isnt the trophies, the beauty of its form, nor the half baked explanation of why they decided to rip the system apart. You show me these same sparring monsters with a broken bud bottle lodged in their grill and then well see how spontaneous their system is.


Oh, such slings and arrows! Arguments based on such broad assertions apply to any martial art, including EPAK. To assume that just because you study EPAK you will come out the upper end of your broken bottle encounter is naïve, as is assuming that just because someone studies the IKCA material they will not. (Be sure to get your insults straight though, the right side patch youre referring to is the IKCA Championships participant patch. Not a flame to be found on it anywhere and Ive yet to see one on eBay.)



> Im not going to change your opinion, and trust me, your not gonna change mine. Ill keep on doing things the way I see fit, and you do the same.  Ive yet to see any (IKCAers) that Id want watching my back. Im sure there are some real bad a$$ members, but I havent had the pleasure as of yet.


I agree with you on the opinion thing; also agree that you obviously havent met the right IKCA people yet. Does that include the person you studied under to get your IKCA Orange Belt back in 1995? Does it also include the individual youre listed under on Kenponet as getting your Kenpo Black Belt from, an IKCA Black Belt? Just what qualifies you to make such sweeping statements concerning the IKCA? Is it a full and complete knowledge of the IKCA system or just assumptions after a limited exposure? 

You are listed as a Kenpo instructor on at least one  site. Given such firm convictions and knowledge I'm curious as to who you study with and what qualifies you to be an instructor?

Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Why spend years trying to discover the, say, grapling aspects, of Kenpo, when a system such as BJJ is nothing but tested and refined grappling? Couldn't exploration in other arts be a tool for your kenpo discovery process?


Did you even read my post?   If you had, you'd see the answers to your questions.

DarK LorD


----------



## GAB (Sep 12, 2004)

DarK LorD

Hi, Your instructor left EPAK, went his way, made some tapes, to preserve the teaching of EPAK (because there were none out there and Master Larry Tatum put them into stone, sort of).

The thought at or before his passing (SGMEP) in the mind of the originator was to make a leaner meaner (better) EPAK (or so I have read). Before that was implemented he died.

Many of the people that were around SGMEP at the same time and after MLT, were left with (evolving after MLT left) what they felt was where the 
originator was going, (redefining again). Or tweaking the system to fit in.

So is that what they are doing, or what they did.

So as I see your statements, your "instructor" felt the AK system was as good as it was going to get, he set it into concrete, continued to teach based on what he put into the tapes at the time he made them. 

Did LT do this so he could show what was being practiced at that very point in time, that he made the tapes? He put his name on the system, LTKKA and now that is what he teaches? Has MLT changed or refined since that time?

Would not it be fair to say that MLT should say, this is the system, I learned from SGMEP, I wanted to preserve it, I teach a system of AK that has not evolved since I left the system and started my own.

It is basically the system prior to SGMEP's death, MLT did not want to see it evolve, He learned it, did not want to change it, so this is what he now teaches. AK as taught by MLT. 

Would that be a fair evaluation of the LTKKA? As taught by MLT and yourself?

How far apart would the MLT system and EPAK be if SGMEP had been able to carry on what he wanted to do (leaner and meaner or better)?

As different as it has gone with others, who might feel they really knew the true thoughts of SGMEP?:idunno: 

Regards, Gary


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> DarK LorD
> 
> Hi, Your instructor left EPAK, went his way, made some tapes, to preserve the teaching of EPAK (because there were none out there and Master Larry Tatum put them into stone, sort of).
> 
> ...


You're way off base Gary.   He put the techniques on tape because no one else had, they are simply the blueprint for the system, and not all encompassing.   They are as rudimentary and fundamental as it gets.

Parker put what he thought was important in the II books, but left much material out, either undiscovered at the time, or, left for discovery within the framework of the system by the individuals practicing it.   Why Mr. Parker didn't do videos is beyond me, from what I've heard, he talked about doing it all the time and never got to it.

DarK LorD


----------



## USKS1 (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> You see, that's the difference between staunch Ak'ers and the rest, we believe everything is in our core system and haven't the need to branch out other than to make the discovery that it was in Kenpo to begin with, we just didn't see it, or, didn't have a competent instructor to guide us that way. As I told MJS earlier, it's not cross-training, it's cross-REFERENCING. If you feel the need to branch out from your core system, something is lacking in either your understanding of your system, unqualified instructors, or an incomplete art, or, a combination of all the above.
> 
> DarK LorD


Sorry,
The reason I cross train is because I am interested in seeing what else is out there. I also cross train in the FMA, JKD, boxing and BJJ to better round out my personal style, not because I feel my base is lacking.

I hate to break the news to you but no single art has it all, not even your beloved American Kenpo. Theory is one thing, application is another.

If you want to test my theory here is a simple way. 
- Go roll with the Gracies or Machados.. If you want to step it up to add your striking just ask, they will let you, but that opens the rules up for them too.

- Go bang sticks with the dog brothers.. They will let you do pretty much whatever you want, but remember they will do the same. Test your club defenses real time.. Obstruct that storm 

- Go to one of the many MMA gyms and tell them you want to test your deadly art against one of their guys.. They will let you.

And yes, I do train in all the above.. That is part of the reason I make this example. I practice what I preach.

You live in California, probably right around the corner from most of these guys.

I have grown past looking for the "angle of the dangle" or the "nip of the tip" and way beyond cookie cutter techniques and scientific talk.

I look to round out my knowledge. The Kajukenbo / Kenpo arts I enjoy and call home, but I play in a lot of playgrounds.

The one thing I find really funny is all the know it alls who say they have trained for 20 or 30 years, and in reality only trained for 6 and repeated for 14.

You can be the biggest fish in the fishbowl, but once you get flushed out into the real world you may be in for a rude awakening.

That is my opinion. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

USKS1 said:
			
		

> Sorry,
> The reason I cross train is because I am interested in seeing what else is out there. I also cross train in the FMA, JKD, boxing and BJJ to better round out my personal style, not because I feel my base is lacking.
> 
> I hate to break the news to you but no single art has it all, not even your beloved American Kenpo. Theory is one thing, application is another.
> ...


Seeing what else is out there how?   Better round out your personal style, but your core is not lacking?   An oxymoronic statement at best.

I don't swim in my own bowl, I go to the ocean where the water is deep and shark infested, and I take my place with the other sharks here in Calfornia, where some of the best sharks live and train.     All those ideas you mentioned, other than the DogBros, I've done, a few times.

DarK LorD


----------



## USKS1 (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Seeing what else is out there how? Better round out your personal style, but your core is not lacking? An oxymoronic statement at best.
> 
> I don't swim in my own bowl, I go to the ocean where the water is deep and shark infested, and I take my place with the other sharks here in Calfornia, where some of the best sharks live and train. All those ideas you mentioned, other than the DogBros, I've done, a few times.
> 
> DarK LorD


Glad to hear you at least practice what you preach. 

Like I said I cross train to keep sharp and current. If I am not explaining that well enough, then I guess I never will. I am done with that conversation.

If you ever get to Texas drop a line, It would be fun to work with you and share some knowledge.

My roots are in California also, San Jose. Moved to Texas about 10 years ago but still get out there every year or so. There are a lot of great people here, but I gotta say California is still the Mecca for martial arts. I miss it.

Keep up the hard training

Dean.


----------



## Kalicombat (Sep 12, 2004)

Mr. Parsons,
    If you read my post earlier in this thread, I stated that I wasted alot of time looking for shortcuts as far as kenpo was concerned. My time with the IKCA was one of those endeavors, as well as my other NON-EPAK kenpo quests. I am looking for the truth in kenpo, and am finding it in EPAK, under the IKKO, and its founder Mr. Conatser. I have been at the martial arts since I was 9 years old; I'll be 39 in a few weeks. 
   I have my reasons for my opinion regarding the IKCA. I have attended one of their camps, and I'll stay with my opinion. I wish Id have been able to train in EPAK back when I started training, but there was no access at that time. But, like someone once said, its not where you start, but where you finish. 
  All your other points of debate are valid, as well as subjective to each of our experiences. Feel free to email me and we can continue this debate in a more candid environment.

Yours in Kenpo,
Gary Catherman
garylee65@yahoo.com


----------



## Fastmover (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> You're way off base Gary.   He put the techniques on tape because no one else had, they are simply the blueprint for the system, and not all encompassing.   They are as rudimentary and fundamental as it gets.
> 
> Parker put what he thought was important in the II books, but left much material out, either undiscovered at the time, or, left for discovery within the framework of the system by the individuals practicing it.   Why Mr. Parker didn't do videos is beyond me, from what I've heard, he talked about doing it all the time and never got to it.
> 
> DarK LorD



From what I heard Mr. Parker was none too happy about the tapes put
out by Tatum. It was after all his lifes work and he or his family should 
have received the benefits from it.  One question, did Tatum ask Parker
to do the tapes?


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

Fastmover said:
			
		

> From what I heard Mr. Parker was none too happy about the tapes put
> out by Tatum. It was after all his lifes work and he or his family should
> have received the benefits from it. One question, did Tatum ask Parker
> to do the tapes?


You know, I've heard this Sob Story so many times, and from Ed Jr. as well.   Mr. Parker not only had the physical and monetary means to do it, but also the time, why he didn't is uncertain,why not ask his son?     Panther Productions came to Tatum, not the other way around.   No, Tatum did not ask Parker, he'd already left the IKKA and was on his own in 87.    Larry didn't do the technique tapes until 93, once again, leaving more than ample time for ANYONE to do what he did, THEY DIDN'T.      Any more silly questions?

DarK LorD


----------



## Fastmover (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> You know, I've heard this Sob Story so many times, and from Ed Jr. as well.   Mr. Parker not only had the physical and monetary means to do it, but also the time, why he didn't is uncertain,why not ask his son?     Panther Productions came to Tatum, not the other way around.   No, Tatum did not ask Parker, he'd already left the IKKA and was on his own in 87.    Larry didn't do the technique tapes until 93, once again, leaving more than ample time for ANYONE to do what he did, THEY DIDN'T.      Any more silly questions?
> 
> DarK LorD



Ive never heard Ed Jr. was upset with the tapes.....this confirms what Ive
heard about the Parkers not being happy with Tatum tapes. Its amazing
that folks ride the Parker wave to serve their purpose and to validate their
cause. Anything for a buck!

So just to understand you correctly Tatum didnt give his old instructor the
respect of asking to put Parkers work on Tape? So the technique 
tapes were not done until 93, did the Parker family give their approval?
I guess not................screw the Parker's! WOW! I cant believe you said
they should stop their sobbing, thats a little across the line.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

Fastmover said:
			
		

> Ive never heard Ed Jr. was upset with the tapes.....this confirms what Ive
> heard about the Parkers not being happy with Tatum tapes. Its amazing
> that folks ride the Parker wave to serve their purpose and to validate their
> cause. Anything for a buck!
> ...









 Yes, a sob story, Parker had every available means and oppurtunity to do the tapes, he didn't, why don't you ask Mr. Parker about it, oh yea, he's dead.   It's a moot point John, and those tapes paved the way for literally thousands of Kenpoists to learn the forms and basics of Kenpo, why is that a problem for YOU, you have nothing to do with EPAK anyway, and I certainly don't see you sending money to Mrs. Parker and family to teach Kenpo, or do you?

DarK LorD


----------



## Fastmover (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Yes, a sob story, Parker had every available means and oppurtunity to do the tapes, he didn't, why don't you ask Mr. Parker about it, oh yea, he's dead.   It's a moot point John, and those tapes paved the way for literally thousands of Kenpoists to learn the forms and basics of Kenpo, why is that a problem for YOU, you have nothing to do with EPAK anyway, and I certainly don't see you sending money to Mrs. Parker and family to teach Kenpo, or do you?
> 
> DarK LorD



Yes Clyde for many years I did support and belong to the IKKA.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Sep 12, 2004)

Fastmover said:
			
		

> Yes Clyde for many years I did support and belong to the IKKA.


Are you still paying them?  If not, I'd like to know why not.    You're teaching the fruit of Mr. Parker's and Mr. Mills' labors as well, with your logic, you should still be paying them, and everyone else that's benefitted over the years should be as well.

DarK LorD


----------



## Fastmover (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Are you still paying them?  If not, I'd like to know why not.    You're teaching the fruit of Mr. Parker's and Mr. Mills' labors as well, with your logic, you should still be paying them, and everyone else that's benefitted over the years should be as well.
> 
> DarK LorD



Just trying to confirm some things that Ive heard. I never meant to say
that folks couldnt make a living, but I was curious what level of respect
and credit was given in their making. 

I will give you credit for one thing.........you certainly support and give full
respect to your instructor. Even more the time you spend supporting what
you believe is impressive and shows a lot of compassion. I value the folks
that have passed on their knowledge to me and give them full credit
in pointing me in the right direction. I feel lucky at times......as Im sure
 you do.

Take Care


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 12, 2004)

Kalicombat said:
			
		

> Mr. Parsons,
> If you read my post earlier in this thread, I stated that I wasted alot of time looking for shortcuts as far as kenpo was concerned. My time with the IKCA was one of those endeavors, as well as my other NON-EPAK kenpo quests. I am looking for the truth in kenpo, and am finding it in EPAK, under the IKKO, and its founder Mr. Conatser. I have been at the martial arts since I was 9 years old; I'll be 39 in a few weeks.
> I have my reasons for my opinion regarding the IKCA. I have attended one of their camps, and I'll stay with my opinion. I wish Id have been able to train in EPAK back when I started training, but there was no access at that time. But, like someone once said, its not where you start, but where you finish.
> All your other points of debate are valid, as well as subjective to each of our experiences. Feel free to email me and we can continue this debate in a more candid environment.
> ...



Mr. Catherman,

I'm sorry your experience with the IKCA is not what you had hoped (sincerely, no sarcasm intended). Some things work for some, not for others. I'm glad you found a Kenpo home, make the most of it, but allow others to do the same. I've learned over the years not to judge a practitioner just because I don't care for the patch on their chest. If you would like to hold a civil discussion on Kenpo or other martial arts via email, I'd be more than willing. You can reach me at wdparsons@hotmail.com

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## GAB (Sep 13, 2004)

DarK LorD

I see what you are saying, now that you put a correct time frame on the events.

I thought Al Tracy had some input into this regarding making the tapes. 
On Al's website, he takes some credit, he also gives a lot of credit to the man who made the tapes.

Why would MLT go to Ed Jr.? Ed Jr was just that a Junior, as I understand it he was not interested in his fathers occupation, other then a son of a person who was very talented and probably heard about it so many times he was tired of it.

I have heard different stories, from different groups as to the amount of involvement Ed Jr. had in AK. It could have been one story or the other as far as I am concerned.

I don't see where you said screw the Parker's, This is where I get into trouble, saying something, then someone adding different words to my story.

You ask a question, the answer comes back as, to kill the messenger attitude.

I was surprised when I got the Encyclopedia of Kenpo, it was/is actually written and published by Junior but the cover say's created and written by Ed
Parker. Not erroneous but deceptive.

When you get into the book you understand that it was or so Junior say's something his father was working on and he finished it (junior). 
I think it was well done and a tribute to Sr. (but the major work that went into it was by Jr.)
He published it in 1992, his father passed away in 1990.

Ed Jr. did not have any of the Kata's or techniques put into a video (he had time) so the thing is, business.

I believe the tape's are also a tribute to SGMEP, the fact that MLT did them is just a testimony as to the knowledge he had and others did not.

I believe one of the reasons (young and old) people who want to go into the Martial Arts is, for health reasons. 
I would say that MLT is pretty healthy looking, and a good example of what others think, they would like to look like, if they took up the art.

Kind of like looking at a body builder and not seeing the perfect specimen and then believing what they preach, yet don't practice.

Just a few of my observations of late.:idunno: 

Regards, Gary


----------

