# Change-Is It A Bad Thing?



## MJS (Nov 30, 2005)

Lately, while viewing other forums, I've seen much discussion about techniques, how they are viewed by different people, why someone does a technique one way, while others do it this way, why people feel its necessary to go against the grain of what Mr. Parker taught, etc., etc.

To give an example: There is a discussion on KenpoTalk on the technique Delayed Sword. The discussion started to focus on a few things. 1) The nature of the attack: a punch or lapel grab and 2) who pins the hand and who does not. There was a mixed bag of results with some saying that the pin is essential and others saying that it is not, and why would you want to do it any other way, because this is the way Mr. Parker did it.

My question is: The art of Kenpo should be adapted to the person doing it, not the person to the art. What may work for one, may not work for the next, therefore, a change is needed. Mr. Parker taught many people and I'm sure that they all do certain techniques differently. Now, did they do these changes after he passed, or were they making changes for themselves while he was still alive?

Mr. Parker himself made changes from when he first learned the art, to better suit his needs and times, so why is it a problem if others make a change? 

In closing, this thread is not intended to cause flames, to have people take shots at others, etc., but to have a good discussion on that often hated word "Change"

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

I think that a person should do what ever he or she feels addresses their concerns. While Delayed Sword can be a introduction to foundation, it may also be anothere's intro to a: minor move, minor move, major move sequence model, which is a little different from the basic jab jab cross most are familiar with in that respect. Both ways are as good a place to start as any. The Key is to make sure both ways get covered.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2005)

Every improvement is a change.

But, not every change is an improvement.


Referring to the conversations on the change within a technique, why would one make a change? Is that change in line with the Rules and Principles of Kenpo? Is the person making the change familiar enough with the system to suggest a change. 

I may know a few techniques and someone may explain to me the 'Equation Formation' ..... but that does not mean I am qualified to make changes in a technique, with just that limited knowledge. 

Remember, Mr Parker suggested we catagorize information as useful, unuseful; and to store information for review at a different time.

Maybe we will find that Delayed Sword for a Punch is unuseful.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2005)

My kenpo training is from the Tracy lineage, and i have made some pretty extensive changes to address problems that I felt the system has, particularly in terms of the overwhelming number of techniques, and that many of the techniques seem almost identical to other techniques so it didn't make sense to me to keep them all.  I also felt that some of the techniques will probably get you killed, so they needed to be eliminated.  

I guess I feel that martial systems have always undergone change thru the generations, and kenpo should/will be no different.  Just because someone, even someone with a gifted martial intellect, decides something should be done a certain way, does not mean that that will be appropriate for everyone.  Change is inevitable, everyone is different.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Maybe we will find that Delayed Sword for a Punch is unuseful.


 Maybe


----------



## MJS (Nov 30, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> My kenpo training is from the Tracy lineage, and i have made some pretty extensive changes to address problems that I felt the system has, particularly in terms of the overwhelming number of techniques, and that many of the techniques seem almost identical to other techniques so it didn't make sense to me to keep them all. I also felt that some of the techniques will probably get you killed, so they needed to be eliminated.
> 
> I guess I feel that martial systems have always undergone change thru the generations, and kenpo should/will be no different. Just because someone, even someone with a gifted martial intellect, decides something should be done a certain way, does not mean that that will be appropriate for everyone. Change is inevitable, everyone is different.


 
I've said the same thing regarding some of the material and the reply I usually get is, "That is because you don't understand the material.  You need to find someone who can show you how to make it work."  I'm not saying that you don't understand the material, just commenting on the usual reply.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

I am not even in Tracy's Kenpo and I would put forth that you propably missed some lessons.
Sean


----------



## The Kai (Nov 30, 2005)

I started in Tracy's kenpo and there is unusable techniques in the system


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> I started in Tracy's kenpo and there is unusable techniques in the system


I'll buy unusefull perhaps, but are you saying that these studies of motion are so flawed that usefull information cannot be extracted for general use within you art? on the street?
Sean


----------



## The Kai (Nov 30, 2005)

Geez, I don't know I only studied t up to 1st brown.  The belts definatly had some crap techniques to them.  What did you think of the material upo to 1st brown??


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

Uhhh errr I haven't actualy studied any Tracy techs... I'm just assuming someone was trying to teach a lesson for something specific but the over all practicality of the technique for general use was a little shaky. In short I'm just arguing the obvious.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> I started in Tracy's kenpo and there is unusable techniques in the system


 
yes, there is definitely some very good material, but there is also some crap material.  I tried to whittle away that which was pretty obviously crap.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I am not even in Tracy's Kenpo and I would put forth that you propably missed some lessons.
> Sean


 
That is entirely possible, I certainly won't argue with that.  On the other hand, I have been training long enough, and in enough different systems to have a fairly good perspective on things.

Many Tracy kenpo techniques have large numbers of variations.  While the 'meat' of the technique remains the same.  By example, the variations often are the difference between finishing an opponent with a punch or a palm strike.  If the meat of the technique is sound, it is worth keeping, but to have 10 different finishing variations is repetitive and unnecessary.  I can use my own imagination and figure out that I can finish him with a punch, or a palm heel.

Many techniques are repetitive.  A technique taught in brown belt, for example, might be identical to a technique taught in blue belt, but with a minor variation.  The brown belt technique could actually have been taught as a variation of the blue belt technique, but instead it is taught separately and given a different name.  Once again, I can use my own imagination and recognize the different possibilities.

Some techniques are very very presumptive, and clearly would not work.  They make huge assumptions about how an attacker is going to stand there and let you do all kinds of rediculous follow-up stuff to him.  This stuff is dangerous to rely on, and is a waste of time to practice.

Tracys kenpo has a huge number of self-defense techniques, 250 to first degree black belt, plus many many variations.  They all have names that you have to memorize, like Passing the Horizon, Eagle Pin, and Crossing the Lock.  In my opinion, this is too many to practice, and is very cumbersome.  I finally decided to streamline the material and get rid of the stuff that obviously shouldn't be there.  This included the techniques that are clearly repetitive, the numerous variations that didn't really teach something new, and the techniques that, in my opinion, will get you killed and don't have some worthwhile idea or movement that is not contained in another technique.

I suspect that these techniques developed as possible combinations used for drilling and practicing in the past.  Somewhere along the way they became codified into a formal curriculum.  But, just because someone in the past came up with this, doesn't mean it is all good, or all sacred.  I think that everyone needs to analyze what they are taught, and make decisions about that which does not make sense.  Mr. Parker did just this.  Tracys claim to have kept everything that they learned from Mr. Parker.  Mr. Parker made changes that ultimatly lead to a different system.  The Tracys are very proud of the fact that they have kept everything.  In my opinion, this is where the Tracys have failed: in failing to recognize that none of this stuff is sacred, and that it can and should be changed to make it better.  What those changes should be will be different from one person to another, depending on their body size, interests, and experiences.

So, I don't claim to be any godsend to kenpo.  I am sure many people would argue that some or even many of the changes I made were poor choices, but I don't care.  What I have done is to rearrange the curriculum so that it makes sense to me, and it is something that I can actually practice, instead of NOT practicing it because the curriculum is overwhelming.  I have whittled the curriculum of 381 techniques plus variatons thru 5th degree black belt, down to a total of 123, and only a few variations.  Some of the original techniques have been combined into one, and others have simply been changed.  I believe the techniques that are worthwhile have been kept, and the stuff that is not has been eliminated.  For me, this works, and if I ever begin teaching, this is how I will teach it.  If someone is interested, I could teach them the old way for the sake of information, but I think it is a cumbersome system and is not the best way to spend my time.

Furthermore, Kenpo is no longer my main focus.  I train primarily in the Chinese arts.  But, to have a streamlined kenpo curriculum keeps me connected to the art, instead of completely drifting away from it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 30, 2005)

I agree with you. I think refinement of your most basic techs are where the practitioner should spend his/her time and varaitions should feel the same. Come up with a list of why nots and them campare your concerns with others. You may learn your error or enlighten another. I think a healthy discussion and weighing what is and is not important to your art is what you are supposed to do. Good job.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I agree with you. I think refinement of your most basic techs are where the practitioner should spend his/her time and varaitions should feel the same. Come up with a list of why nots and them campare your concerns with others. You may learn your error or enlighten another. I think a healthy discussion and weighing what is and is not important to your art is what you are supposed to do. Good job.
> Sean


 
Well thank you, sir.  For the record, I did keep my instructor informed of what I was doing, and it was done with his full blessing. In fact, when I first suggested this to him, his reaction was "well, it's about time!"

Neither of us are high-ranked kenpo people, and we do not belong to anyone's organization, including the Tracys.  We are just doing what we feel is best, and what makes sense to us.


----------



## The Kai (Dec 1, 2005)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Uhhh errr I haven't actualy studied any Tracy techs... I'm just assuming someone was trying to teach a lesson for something specific but the over all practicality of the technique for general use was a little shaky. In short I'm just arguing the obvious.
> Sean


 
But since you never worked the system you are arguing your perspective, applied to a system you know nothing about?  Correct?


----------



## BallistikMike (Dec 1, 2005)

Change?

Like reading a book and then re-reading the same book a year later, 5 years later?

That type of change?

Your personal growth, your experiences in life, you physical attributes increasing or decreasing?

Your mental awareness?

The systems set down are basic material progressing to advanced material the longer you train and practice. That basic material will change, 100% fact it will change. It will change for you as you grow or dont grow. 

Is the material changing or are you?


----------



## The Kai (Dec 1, 2005)

I would vote that change is viewed as a very bad thing from the responses gotten so far

So how long do I continue to practice before I change enough?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 1, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> I would vote that change is viewed as a very bad thing from the responses gotten so far
> 
> So how long do I continue to practice before I change enough?


 
well, I for one cannot argue that change is a bad thing.  I think if you feel you have a better way to do things, if it improves your art for yourself, then make the change.  Not everyone will agree with you, many people may ridicule you and claim you don't have the 'experience' or the 'authority' to make the changes, but if it works for you, then make it.  Nobody can claim ownership of these arts.  Once you have learned them, they belong to you on a personal level, and what you do with them is up to you.


----------



## The Kai (Dec 1, 2005)

Carefull, Remeber the Arts don't need to change, you need to change!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 1, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Carefull, Remeber the Arts don't need to change, you need to change!


 
heh, heh heh


----------



## RichK (Dec 1, 2005)

Change is eminant<SP>, especially on a variety of levels. In AK there are a few techniques I had to change to adapt to my disabilities, even though Long Form 5 seriously hurts me to do I still enjoy it. How many times did Mr Parker look at a tecnique/set/form and change it. Kick set was changed by one of his students. It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 1, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Carefull, Remeber the Arts don't need to change, you need to change!


Actualy some methods of combat do lose their relevance as counters become more widly mastered and spread. Look how American Kickboxers got chewed up for a while by the Muay thai kickers for a while. Now its starting to become just another counterable method of Kickboxing. Some adopt new methods and some isolate their students from reality, but its been dealt with in one form or another.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Dec 4, 2005)

Just to expand on this thread a bit more, what are some changes that you may have made to the way that you perform your material?  Have you added/removed anything?

Mike


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Dec 4, 2005)

RichK said:
			
		

> It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.


 
Maybe both missed a class and misunderstood.   Mr. Kelly is a respected Kenpoist, but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.

DarK LorD


----------



## Doc (Dec 4, 2005)

RichK said:
			
		

> Change is eminant<SP>, especially on a variety of levels. In AK there are a few techniques I had to change to adapt to my disabilities, even though Long Form 5 seriously hurts me to do I still enjoy it. How many times did Mr Parker look at a tecnique/set/form and change it. Kick set was changed by one of his students. It was said above that a technique was taken out or changed because it was crap. Then the answer to that was, you must have missed a class and you must not understand the technique. I heard Sibok Kelly once say "that technique sure looks pretty but I wouldn't do it out on the street". So tell me, did he miss a class or does he not understand the technique? Not flame throwing, just making you think.


I've known the esteemed Tom KellEy (intentional spelling) since he came to the IKKA around 1968. He is a plain spoken gentleman not prone to tell you what you want to hear, instead settling for the truth of his perspective. I've heard him express this sentiment on ocassions when exposed to later generation students performing what, for most of us "Ancients," was some instructors interpretation of the "new" (from our perspective) motion based techniques. I was not there so I have no knowledge of the circumstances of the statement, however if he made the statement based on his observations, it is my experience he is usually correct. A smart person would probably ask a few questions and get "enlightened." Absent that, I'd take his word for it to the bank.


----------



## RichK (Dec 7, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.
> 
> DarK LorD



That is my exact meaning of change. If a technique called for a flying aerial spinning flipping upside down kick, I would have to change it as I am too old and too disabled to do that. Where did that kick come from? Must have watched too many Ninja Turtle movies in the early nineties with my son.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2005)

Change is neutral, natural and unavoidable.

Question is how things change and why.

Change for the sake of change is almost always a mistake, but then again so is tradition for the sake of tradition.

Everyone gets what their teachers give them, they get what they read, see, here, have done to them.  After a few years everyone has gotten a lot of things, and everyone has gotten different things, in different orders from different places.  They also started off with different bodies, different mindsets, different strengths, different weaknesses and have been doing different jobs, other hobbies and living with different families.

To expect everyone to end up the same is wishful thinking gone wrong.  

Change will happen, and it will occur naturally.  To unnaturally force change or try to prevent change is where you run into problems.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

I was going to start a new thread for this, but I decided not to, as this question still has something to do with the topic of the thread.

What are everyones thoughts on how fighting has changed?  I would think that this would be one reason why people may make changes to their material.  Was grappling as much of a threat 20 or more years ago as it is today?  What about the way people throw strikes?

IMO, change is a part of life.  We can look around us today and see changes in the way houses are built, changes in cars, medicine, etc.  

So, are we just changing things for no apparent reason, or is something happening that is making us change?

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Maybe both missed a class and misunderstood. Mr. Kelly is a respected Kenpoist, but just because he says he wouldn't do something is not to say others won't that are better at it.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
Different people are able to use different things, and not everything is equally useful for everyone.

That being said, I do believe that sometimes some techniques end up in a curriculum, when they really should have been discarded.  Some techniques are just poorly thought thru, or were just a bad idea, plain and simple.  I think that some techniques were created in the past as perhaps one of many drills or explorations in movement that were being done at the time, but maybe it wasn't really meant to be codified.  Unfortunately, they DID become codified when they should have been left behind.  Just because someone came up with a technique in the past does not mean it should be kept forever.  

I do not have experience in EPAK kenpo so I am not trying to imply this about Mr. Parker's curriculum, but from my own kenpo experience I think this is true at least in come cases.

So when someone says that you just didn't learn the technique correctly, or you don't fully understand it, I think this kind of response may or may not be appropriate.  Yes, it is important to try to fully understand a technique and how it is best used.  It may well be that something you have struggled would be useful with a better understanding.  However, I also believe that some techniques are just plain bad ideas, and need to be discarded.  No amount of digging or studying or trying to uncover its secrets or principles, or having a better instructor, is going to make it useful.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Dec 7, 2005)

Individual people change over time.  You have to change the way you move over time.  You have to deepen your understanding of the material you have been taught, learn new ways to apply it, and adapt it to your growing or ageing body.

The state of the art changes over time.  Many martial artists strive to improve their game and learn to successfully attack and defend in increasingly more difficult situations.  Martial artists who spar/compete/fight against other martial artists know that they must improve their game by improving their execution, expanding their arsenal, and even -- I am going to say it -- innovating.  

Individuals and arts must change and improve over time to retain their comparative effectiveness and escape from decay into mere historical curiosity.


----------



## Doc (Dec 10, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Individuals and arts must change and improve over time to retain their comparative effectiveness and escape from decay into mere historical curiosity.


Dam, that was good!


----------

