# Set 2



## MA_Student (Sep 3, 2017)

So in majority of kenpo places I've been around they don't teach many of the set 2s the only ones I've ever done are blocking set 2 and co-ordination 2. I also know finger set 2 and striking set 2 but that's because I taught myself them. Them plus kicking 2 and stance 2 are never taught. People say it's because they're not very good but all the techniques are taught and some of those could easily class as not very good but are still taught. 

I've looked at them myself and taught myself 2 of them and I actually like them. Stance 2 shows the more advanced stances and finger set 2 expands on finger set one and teaches advancing and retreating with the finger pokes and going to angles.

I just wonder why most places are so against them


----------



## DaveB (Sep 3, 2017)

Have you any video of these sets?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 3, 2017)

I had trained in the Tracy lineage and for the most part the numbered 2 sets were not part of our curriculum.  From discussion both here and on Kenpotalk.com, it seems that these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, and they are largely considered to be filler material with little value that isn't already found elsewhere in the system, and that the way in which they are constructed they have some questionable and even dysfunctional biomechanics and such.

I suggest you post your discussion on kempotalk.com.  That site is pretty quiet nowadays, but still gets some traffic by some people.  Ron Chapel, who signs in as "Doc" was a close friend of Mr. Parker for a long time, up until Mr. Parker's death, and has weighed in on this issue a number of times.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I had trained in the Tracy lineage and for the most part the numbered 2 sets were not part of our curriculum.  From discussion both here and on Kenpotalk.com, it seems that these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, and they are largely considered to be filler material with little value that isn't already found elsewhere in the system, and that the way in which they are constructed they have some questionable and even dysfunctional biomechanics and such.
> 
> I suggest you post your discussion on kempotalk.com.  That site is pretty quiet nowadays, but still gets some traffic by some people.  Ron Chapel, who signs in as "Doc" was a close friend of Mr. Parker for a long time, up until Mr. Parker's death, and has weighed in on this issue a number of times.


Yeah sure but a lot of the techniques werent created by Parker either and a fair few of them have questionable and dysfunctional movements but they're all taught. I don't see anything hugely wrong with them I mean personally I'd rather cut out a few of the rubbish techniques then the sets because the techniques are the main self defence aspect the sets are just going over basics


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Sep 4, 2017)

ive done stance set 2 kicking set 2 coordination set 2 blocking set 2


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 5, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Yeah sure but a lot of the techniques werent created by Parker either and a fair few of them have questionable and dysfunctional movements but they're all taught. I don't see anything hugely wrong with them I mean personally I'd rather cut out a few of the rubbish techniques then the sets because the techniques are the main self defence aspect the sets are just going over basics


I'm not passing judgement on it, just saying you might get some more insights on kenpotalk.com.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 21, 2017)

I like the set 2s. They have a good flow to them


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Jan 22, 2018)

To answer your question as to why so many are against them... You would need to go down the list of the people you are referring too as each have their own personal reasons why they don't teach certain things. Some of the people that created the sets don't even do the set they created, while others find great value in a set. I know one Senior who is very fond of stating his disdain for Finger Set while other highly skilled Kenpo practitioners swear that it elevates Kenpo to a surgical level, it comes down to personal preference... In my opinion as teachers we have a responsibility to train those that come to us in need of self protection skills by whatever means we think will best work, if that includes kicking set 1 and 2 or no kicking set at all that's perfectly OK, I've come to appreciate the different branches of the Ed Parker tree, thank goodness we are not all some cookie cutter replicas doing the same stuff across the board forcing our students to tailor themselves to fit the art... nah we tend to be more practical in our approaches, besides who wants to learn a set from an instructor who does not believe it has significant value lol he would be rolling his eyes and teaching it without any conviction which would make learning it correctly a bit of a challenge.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 23, 2018)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> To answer your question as to why so many are against them... You would need to go down the list of the people you are referring too as each have their own personal reasons why they don't teach certain things. Some of the people that created the sets don't even do the set they created, while others find great value in a set. I know one Senior who is very fond of stating his disdain for Finger Set while other highly skilled Kenpo practitioners swear that it elevates Kenpo to a surgical level, it comes down to personal preference... In my opinion as teachers we have a responsibility to train those that come to us in need of self protection skills by whatever means we think will best work, if that includes kicking set 1 and 2 or no kicking set at all that's perfectly OK, I've come to appreciate the different branches of the Ed Parker tree, thank goodness we are not all some cookie cutter replicas doing the same stuff across the board forcing our students to tailor themselves to fit the art... nah we tend to be more practical in our approaches, besides who wants to learn a set from an instructor who does not believe it has significant value lol he would be rolling his eyes and teaching it without any conviction which would make learning it correctly a bit of a challenge.


I've seen a lot of bad finger set, but the only reason to limit the idea, is because the teacher wants to teach boxing ideas, as a rule.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 23, 2018)

As with most things in a martial art, if "you" find value in it, then it has value.  If "you" don't find value in a kata/form/practice, then to you it has no value.

That does NOT mean that the practice in and of itself has value.


----------

