# Should the Sets be required for promotion?



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

I am under the impression that Mr. Parker only created the Blocking Set #1 (Star Block) and the Finger Set #1. Also, I have heard that the other sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content. I have been told that when he was asked to teach them here in New England, Mr. Parker selected a student who had learned the sets from other Kenpo Instructors and had him demonstrate the sets for the seminar class. Mr. Parker would then add his insights to the movements of these sets as the class learned them. 

If this is true, why is it that everyone thinks that the Sets should be belt requirements? If the Star Block and the Finger Set #1 were the only original sets required, then why can't the others be left as exercises for the students to perfect their basics instead of requiring them to be tested on it.

I do however feel that Kicking Set One can be added to the list with Star Block and Finger Set #1.

What do you think?:asian:


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *I am under the impression that Mr. Parker only created the Blocking Set #1 (Star Block) and the Finger Set #1. Also, I have heard that the other sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content. I have been told that when he was asked to teach them here in New England, Mr. Parker selected a student who had learned the sets from other Kenpo Instructors and had him demonstrate the sets for the seminar class. Mr. Parker would then add his insights to the movements of these sets as the class learned them.
> 
> ...



It's simple. Mr. Parker already had a firm grasp of the basics when he started formulating "HIS" system. He had no real reason to go back and drill the basics over and over again, like a newer student would. I would say that the Sets, even if created by someone else, were included in the system by Mr. Parker to help students gain a firm understanding of "HOW" to properly execute them.

As for these sets being included in Tests... I think they should be. It allows for instructors to view and understand a practitioners ability to perform isolated basics.

My Opinion,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

> As for these sets being included in Tests... I think they should be. It allows for instructors to view and understand a practitioners ability to perform isolated basics.



I know if I were putting up a student for promotion in front of the head instructor of the school, my students would *KNOW* their basics.

Students perform basics in every class. With that in mind shouldn't they know their basics well enough *prior* to being tested on them? 

:asian:


----------



## WilliamTLear (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



There is a certain amount of stress that comes with a test, I think that it is the capability to perform under stress that counts.

Take Care,
Billy Lear
United Kenpo Systems :asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

Remember when you tested for yellow belt? You need to know all that info. Basic, Techniques, Form, Star Block.

All I am saying is that as you get more adept with your Kenpo, your basics should be improving as well. If you are tested on your basics seperately, then why do you need to do a set that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> If you are tested on your basics seperately, then why do you need to do a "set" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.
> *



Man you have a point there.............

so then you are also saying......

why do you need to do a "technique" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

or.....

why do you need to do a "Form" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

or.....

why do you need to "spar" that is nothing but basics. YOu are being tested twice on the same thing.

Hey, you just simplified my testing.....!

NOT!

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 24, 2002)

UH NO!

The forms and techniques are more than just basics. The tech principle and theory in detail to a certain degree, allot more than sets.

It isn't broken down that easy Dennis. Even a low ranking black as myself even knows that....


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

Well I guess you know.  I'll agree.


----------



## Zeke (Jul 24, 2002)

It seems to me that in regards to sets  one could say that they - the sets - were counterproductive to the rest of our Kenpo.(I know I do )With the forms and techniques , from white to black, we tried to get the whole body to move as one , while in the sets we go the other way  Now while there might is some merrit to that, I feel that it should only be reserved to lower belts. Now that is just my opinion and I do like to do the single techniqueseries from lets say "Kicking set one" or "Striking set one" with an opponent, but apart from that I  don't feel they have a place in training. So that means that up to green belt I test my students on sets. After that level - brown and up - I will teach them the sets IF they want them, but I will not test them . Again this is just the way I see MY kenpo and I understand why others could feel the need to keep them in.
Take care
Zeke:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

They only test on what they want to....... I myself have always enjoyed having others test my students for outside opinions.  I feel that they should know the entire system and not just at one time or other.  We are, of course all free to do as we wish, I just want my students to be the best prepared as possible under all conditions and that means to train and use all the "Kenpo Tools" that we have at our disposal including the sets...... they do have valuable information and training within them.

Each to his own........:asian:


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Jul 24, 2002)

I am a staunch supporter of the sets, for the simple reason of teaching comparable motion when instructing students.     Alot of beginning students (and even some of us old timers) need a point of reference and the sets do that quite well.   

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 24, 2002)

for many reasons......

:asian:


----------



## Zeke (Jul 25, 2002)

Well as you said, Each to his own 
It's not that I don't know the sets I just find that after green belt they don't bring anything new to the system that can't be found working against an opponent (in regards to selfdefence that is). As a green belt the student shoud have his/her basics down pretty good so the cordination of basic skills gained from the sets should be there. And from that point on working the same drills with  an opponent where you have to cordinate the lower and upper body movements as a whole brings better results. Again just my opinion
Take care
Zeke:asian:


----------



## jeffkyle (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *for many reasons......
> 
> :asian: *




A moment in History!


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *I am a staunch supporter of the sets, for the simple reason of teaching comparable motion when instructing students.     Alot of beginning students (and even some of us old timers) need a point of reference and the sets do that quite well.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you. But do they need to be tested on them?

I feel they should be taught and worked by the students during the course of their class time. But what does kicking set #2 show you during a test  that you can't see by just running the basic kicks?

:asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 25, 2002)

.. in my opinion they do need to be tested for them.  It is a nice intermediate way of introducing Principles, Concepts, and Theories in motion, at a more rudimentry level for my stripe tests.  It adds a certain symetry to the entire testing procedure.  

Coordination Set #1 helps you with Long #1 and Long #2; Stance Set #1, invaluable for transitioning through stances (I teach it to White & Yellow Belts, but do not test on it until later. I teach Striking Set #1 (just to the front initially) very early on for sparring purposes, then the entire set later for the stripe test. 

Think about what Kicking set teaches.  Not just the kicks, but the maneuvers synchronizing body momentum, with correct body alignment and gravitational marrage, not to mention balance, flexibility and strength.

Yep, if they learn it, then it is fair game for being part of a test.  Especially a more physical test later on.

-Michael
UKS-Texas


----------



## Klondike93 (Jul 25, 2002)

They should be taught and tested on, it's all part of the curriculum and thus tested on. 

The way I look at, is if your learning EPAK then it's all part of the system and it should all be learned. Now if you continue to use it is up to you, catagorize it like Mr. Parker said, useful, unuseful and useless.

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

> Coordination Set #1 helps you with Long #1 and Long #2; Stance Set #1, invaluable for transitioning through stances (I teach it to White & Yellow Belts, but do not test on it until later. I teach Striking Set #1 (just to the front initially) very early on for sparring purposes, then the entire set later for the stripe test.


 
So what you are saying is that the sets help with perfecting the "core" curriculum (basic, forms, and techniques). I would agree with you on that.

However, what are you testing a student on generally? Basics, Forms, and Techniques right? I equate it to this. In school, whether it be college, high school, where ever, did you get tested on how you studied? On how you perfected your math skills? If your teacher gave you a drill to help you perfect you geometry skills did they test you on the drill or the subject of geometry?

If as an instructor you know what you are looking for at a certain point in a students progress, shouldn't they be able to apply what you taught them in the sets to what you are asking them to do during the test without actually having to do the set?...:asian:


----------



## eternalwhitebelt (Jul 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> 
> *
> 
> ...




Excellent post


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 25, 2002)

... I can test their execution of basics through watching their Sets.  

-Michael
UKS-Texas


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 25, 2002)

Ah the ole' Catch 22....forgot about that bugger


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 25, 2002)

You got it.  It's like Mr. Parker's friend ... you know ... "Sam Ting".  Just another vehicle for learning and teaching.

-MB
UKS-Texas


----------



## Kalicombat (Jul 25, 2002)

kenpo3631,
    The sets are part of the curriculum, therefore, they should be required as part of each respective belt level and tested on. If you eliminate them from testing today, then maybe short one next year, then long one, the following year. What about belt pledges, sayings, etc...  Many instructors I have met dont even know these let alone require their students too. Just more parring down, cutting back. The system is out there, in its entirety, for all to learn if they so desire. Why not take full advantage of all that EPAK has to offer? 
    This goes back to learning the techniques on the opposite side. If a person is not required to prove he or she can do it, chances are they wont on their own. This topic has been hashed, re hashed, etc. but it is about the same thing, losing little parts of the system. 

Just my opinion,
Gary Catherman, Kenpoist.


----------



## Zeke (Jul 25, 2002)

Well Gary, this is one of those "things" were we will have agree to disagree Your point of wiev is a valued one and one I totally agreed with some years ago. I will try to explain what changed it for me. Now I have always been against losing parts of the system(s) and since my first Kenpo instructor did Tracy Kenpo and I over the years converted to EPAK, suddenly I found myself with an HUGE curriculum that I felt that I HAD to keep. And my students had to be able to do everything that I had learned over the years Why? Because it all had value - Yes I agreed with that and still do - but more and more I came to realise I was only going though the motions and NOT doing what my students were paying me for. 
They pay me for giving them a system of practical self-defence, that WILL work for them when they need it. What they don't pay me for is turning all of them into instructor-to-be-some-day. (Now some of them will became instructors and they will learn the whole system) In reality you don't need to be able to do kicking set 2 to be a good martial artist . Do you need to know it as an instructor to be a good instructor? Well you should at least know of it , but are it gonna make you any better, Well...... 

Today in my mind I sort of put everything I have (learned) into 3 catagories:

1.) Selfdefence - This is where I put most of the techniques, some knifework and "other" things in. Other things by the way could be something like doing Kicking set 1 with an opponent.

2.) Sportfighting - That is everything from Knock-down to MMA-fighting just as long as it has some kind rulebook.

3.) Martial arts - This is where I put the forms , the sets , and all the rest . Some of it I pactise a lot - like the forms - and some of it I don't do very offen , Like the sets.

By dividing all my infomation into these 3 catogories I find it a lot easier to decide what part of the kenposystem has the most practical value for the student and at the same time I don't feel quite so "guilty" for not being able to give the same amount of time to all parts of the systems.
Once again just my reasons for not requiring the sets as part of belt testing
Take care
Zeke


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 25, 2002)

... and Kenpo is good at tolerating the differences of opinion.  Something about "Mind like a parachute".  

-Michael
UKS-Texas


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 26, 2002)

> The sets are part of the curriculum, therefore, they should be required as part of each respective belt level and tested on.



The *only* sets that were created by Mr. Parker were the Star Block and Finger Set #1. The rest were injected into the system later on. 
Heck, it is my understanding (and this comes from what I consider to be a reputable source), that when Mr. Parker was asked to do the sets, other than the ones that he created, he would have someone who learned the set from another instructor do it and then he would interject his insights. IMO your statement is just that... "opinion".  



> If you eliminate them from testing today, then maybe short one next year, then long one, the following year. What about belt pledges, sayings, etc... Many instructors I have met dont even know these let alone require their students too.



Honestly, do you believe that Short and Long Form #1 or any form for that matter would be eliminated from the system? The forms teach us far too much to be eliminated. Heck, they were referred to as Mr. Parker's "babies". 

To clear the air, I never said that the sets should be eliminated from the system. I merely stated that if they are intended to be an exercise in basics, a teaching tool, or a practice tool for students, then why should it be mandatory to test students on them? I never at any time stated that they had no value. Let me ask you this, and ask your instructor too...did you or they, ever see Mr. Parker do Kicking Set #2? Finger Set #2? Blocking Set #2? even as to demonstrate them?...

Further, Mr. Parker used to say, I know I heard it for myself, that _"Sets are nothing more then mental masturbation."_  You can make up your own set and noone could tell you that it is wrong, so long as you could back it up with some kind of sound explanation. 
I do know all of the sets, I learned them, tested on them and even still teach some of them. I feel that they are tools, tools to give the student to help them get better at their basics. If you want to test them on it...great. However I do not feel that it is a neccesary evil to do so.:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _*
> The "only" sets that were created by Mr. Parker were the Star Block and Finger Set #1. The rest were injected into the system later on.
> *



I keep hearing this..... and it may be in the technical sense true .... however to discount that Ed Parker allowed "other insertions" of sets and didn't know them or just put them in the system for no reason is "TOTALLY RIDICULOUS"  he also had inserted the kicking set # 1 developed by Tom Kelly, does that mean that you should not teach it because ED PARKER DIDN'T FROM SCRATCH DEVELOP IT!!!   Then you may as well start studying another system because many, many different instructors had a hand in the evolution of the system, INCLUDING one very popular instructor (which some consider to be a reputable source) that is on the circuit today.... or...... is it only that if he was involved that it is legit?   Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

*



			Heck, it is my understanding (and this comes from what I consider to be a reputable source), that when Mr. Parker was asked to do the sets, other than the ones that he created, he would have someone who learned the set from another instructor do it and then he would interject his insights. IMO your statement is just that... "opinion".
		
Click to expand...

*
If he didn't find value in it why did he interject his insights and waste his time then?  Maybe he wanted to see what version had reached this area?  How do you know he didn't know it for sure?

Right, Just my opinion!

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Jul 26, 2002)

> I keep hearing this..... and it may be in the technical sense true .... however to discount that Ed Parker allowed "other insertions" of sets and didn't know them or just put them in the system for no reason is "TOTALLY RIDICULOUS



I am not saying that he didn't know them. Heck, anyone can know something. However, say I create a new blocking set, do you know what I was thinking or feeling when *I* created it. The answer is NO! So can you honestly give the "true" interpretation of the set, NO, just your own. You would only be able to inject your own theories into what was being performed. So why couldn't Mr. Parker do the same?



> he also had inserted the kicking set # 1 developed by Tom Kelly, does that mean that you should not teach it because ED PARKER DIDN'T FROM SCRATCH DEVELOP IT!!!



Did I ever say that we shouldn't teach the sets....NO. As for the Kicking Set #1, I previously posted that it should be utilized just like Finger Set #1 and Star Block.



> Then you may as well start studying another system because many, many different instructors had a hand in the evolution of the system,



Well, that I won't deny. Most had a firm grasp of the system and others not so firm. So as in any art you'll find some stuff that just doesn't jive. By the way..who put the chicken kick into the technique Checking the Storm? I recall it was changed back by Mr. Parker to the front/side kick version...why? Did the person who wrote the manual have a firm grasp on the system...hmmmm, or was it someone trying to be a creative genius? My point is that that version made it into the system and was obviously taught...Mr. Parker knew about it...how long did it go on like that for? The point is it was a change not made by EP but it by someone who influenced the system yet maybe didn't have a firm grasp of what he was doing.



> INCLUDING one very popular instructor (which some consider to be a reputable source) that is on the circuit today.... or...... is it only that if he was involved that it is legit? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm



Ouch, the gloves come off....

I have one question though...did you ever ask that same instructor for help, clarification, instruction or explanation on anything referring to Kenpo? 


The reputable person I referred to by the way....it was Mr. Parker himself...


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Jul 27, 2002)




----------

