# Master Key Moves



## FeralKenpo

I just finished watching a video by Jim Brassard on combination #44. In the video Mr. Brassard says that combination #3 is one of the master key moves in SKK. So my question is, what do you think the other master key moves in SKK are? 

PS: What makes a movement, a master key movement?

-Feral


----------



## stickarts

To me, a master key movement is a movement that can be used in a wide variety of scenarios.


----------



## marlon

FeralKenpo said:


> I just finished watching a video by Jim Brassard on combination #44. In the video Mr. Brassard says that combination #3 is one of the master key moves in SKK. So my question is, what do you think the other master key moves in SKK are?
> 
> PS: What makes a movement, a master key movement?
> 
> -Feral


 
interesting question.  Master key is terminology from AK not skk and i can see 3 fuinctioning as such in skk:  6 (with the blocks), 5, 1, 15, 10, 21,39,40,60.  these represent to my understanding different ways of core movement and concepts in skk.  I could be way off, though.  Again,skk gerenally does not use terminology such as 'master key moves'.  Perhaps, someone else with a better undersrtanding of both systems could help us out.  Kenpojoe comes to mind here...
respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## KENPOJOE

Hi folks!
There are indeed "master key moves" in Shaolin Kempo, although they have never been refered to as such. When we see techniques that are similar in nature,footwork,positioning,etc, then there are master key moves and thereby master key techniques.
There are also "family related" techniques as well, but it is not as prominent nor as purposely done as in American Kenpo.
Here are some examples of master key moves in techniques:
Combination 1 & 18 [draw to cat with inverted palm black/monkey paw
combination 2 & 5 "box step" into side horse paralelling opponent's punch to the inside of his centerline.
Combinations 10 & 17 can also seen as similar as well.
comination 9 is an expansion on 8 so we can easily see 8 being the master key technique.

An example of "family related" would be Combination #6 & #7
In 6 you are in a horse stance so when you lift your leg, your body shift toward 9 o'clock as you execute a right FRONT BALL kick to the inside of you opponent's centerline to his groin. In 7 you step to 7:30 as you execute a right SIDE BLADE kick to the OUTSIDE of opponent's body to right floating ribs.
footwork:lateral vs diagonal
weapon: vertical vs horizontal
target:vertcal [Groin] vs horizontal [ribs]
opponents position: inside vs outside
now:both move toward the left and use kicks solely to attack the opponent so we can reason that they are related, but when we look at the overall techniques, we can say it is a "brother/sister" relationship because each is the "opposite" based on approaches mentioned above. like the different sexes, we can see the similarities and differences. 
I hope that I was of some service.
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## LawDog

Without it nothing else within a given technique or basic movement will work properly.
Examples,
*power base,
*transitionals,
*impacting patterns,
*Judo throws,
*jujitsu locks,
*suppressions,
and the list goes on.


----------



## RevIV

KENPOJOE said:


> Hi folks!
> There are indeed "master key moves" in Shaolin Kempo, although they have never been refered to as such. When we see techniques that are similar in nature,footwork,positioning,etc, then there are master key moves and thereby master key techniques.
> There are also "family related" techniques as well, but it is not as prominent nor as purposely done as in American Kenpo.
> Here are some examples of master key moves in techniques:
> Combination 1 & 18 [draw to cat with inverted palm black/monkey paw
> combination 2 & 5 "box step" into side horse paralelling opponent's punch to the inside of his centerline.
> Combinations 10 & 17 can also seen as similar as well.
> comination 9 is an expansion on 8 so we can easily see 8 being the master key technique.
> 
> An example of "family related" would be Combination #6 & #7
> In 6 you are in a horse stance so when you lift your leg, your body shift toward 9 o'clock as you execute a right FRONT BALL kick to the inside of you opponent's centerline to his groin. In 7 you step to 7:30 as you execute a right SIDE BLADE kick to the OUTSIDE of opponent's body to right floating ribs.
> footwork:lateral vs diagonal
> weapon: vertical vs horizontal
> target:vertcal [Groin] vs horizontal [ribs]
> opponents position: inside vs outside
> now:both move toward the left and use kicks solely to attack the opponent so we can reason that they are related, but when we look at the overall techniques, we can say it is a "brother/sister" relationship because each is the "opposite" based on approaches mentioned above. like the different sexes, we can see the similarities and differences.
> I hope that I was of some service.
> BEGOOD,
> KENPOJOE


 
How do you determine where to make the relation?  I see your 1 & 18-  but then i look at 3, 18, 29 as having the same movements on the takedown.  So what would that be considered? the others i get, but then we come back to the more oversimplified version of combo 6.  wouldnt, 8,9,12,14,16,19,27 all be extensions of 6?  so how would that be worded.  I def. do not quite understand the terminology used in EPAK and so when we try to use the same language with SKK i get confused but would appreciate any help on explaining things better to students. thanks.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

I mean no offense, but I always considered 'master key moves' a bit of hokum.

To be clear, the concept is valid.  Some moves in kenpo, or any other art, are bread-and-butter moves.  You can use them in multiple scenarios.  They develop solid understanding.  Often, they are the ones simple enough to remember under stress and perform under suboptimal conditions.

The hokum comes from calling them 'master key moves'.  Makes it sound so esoteric, so scholarly, so....worth paying an extra $50 a month so you can get the private lesson where they teach that.

Nobody ever signed up for a premium class called 'new ways to look at stuff you already know'....

Just my 3 cents canadian.


----------



## DavidCC

SKK is a very simple system.  What I mean is, it is not based on real deep understanding of human anatomy or on esoteric philosophy.  I think Nick Cerio summed it up best when he said

"hit him like this, then like this, then like this.  See what I mean?"

but many are trying to add depth to the system.  So sometimes we take concepts from other styles and try to find parallels within SKK.  And sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.  That's what great about "concepts" - they are open to individual interpretation.


----------



## marlon

DavidCC said:


> SKK is a very simple system. What I mean is, it is not based on real deep understanding of human anatomy or on esoteric philosophy. I think Nick Cerio summed it up best when he said
> 
> "hit him like this, then like this, then like this. See what I mean?"
> 
> but many are trying to add depth to the system. So sometimes we take concepts from other styles and try to find parallels within SKK. And sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. That's what great about "concepts" - they are open to individual interpretation.


 

i think that a thing can be described as simplely or as complicated as one likes...it is not about the depth of the system but the depth of ones teaching and /or understanding.  Ed Parker had an incredible depth of understanding and  teaching that helped some and  imo confused others.  If taught properly as Lawdog mentioned the both systems work extremely well whehter or not one can analyize it to a university degree or simplify it for a highschool student.  I personal tend to overanalyze for myself and teach the way people want it and hopefully what works best for them.

Resepctfully,
Marlon


----------



## DavidCC

marlon said:


> i think that a thing can be described as simplely or as complicated as one likes...it is not about the depth of the system but the depth of ones teaching and /or understanding. Ed Parker had an incredible depth of understanding and teaching that helped some and imo confused others. If taught properly as Lawdog mentioned the both systems work extremely well whehter or not one can analyize it to a university degree or simplify it for a highschool student. I personal tend to overanalyze for myself and teach the way people want it and hopefully what works best for them.
> 
> Resepctfully,
> Marlon


 
Well, Yeah, I never said it didn't work 

but Ed Parker built layers of stuff into AKK that just aren't there in SKK.  Web of Knowledge, Category Completion, Universal Pattern etc. Concepts like that.  The PRINCIPLES of self-defense CAN be found (like you said, depending on the teacher) in common between systems, but the conceptual structures of how the system is taught may or may not be.

You'll have to cut me a bit of slack today maybe, I just spent a weekend with Doc Chapel and my brain is still pretty full.  We looked at a variety of inter-related topics: the structure and purpose of the golgi tendon, the role of the visual cortex in balance and locomotion, the different ways pre-tensing various muscle groups will effect structure and stability, the activity of proprioceptive senses and how they can be used positivley and negatively, the psychology of confrontation and assessing attacks and responses, the role of muscles in structure and protection and how to reassign the msucles groups in each party, the physiological effects of language (spoken and thought), the physiological effects of emoting (facial expressions and body language) on both parties...

Proper understanding of these factors are all built-in to SL-4 kenpo techniques, sets, and principles.  So while a teacher can simplify or elaborate on a topic, I think that some things have a certain amount of depth inherent.

I think the concept of "Master Key Moves" can be a useful tool in understanding the relationships between various techniques, and to understand that a particular set of gross movements can be applied to a variety of specific attacks when those gross movements are refined to specific applications (a concept we are all familiar with through the process of analyzing kata applications).


----------



## LawDog

I guess it can come down to this,
those who really have fought tend to keep the discriptive language more plain and those who have not tend to over kill a subject.
The early SKK boys did not have to use those over complicated discriptive sentances between each other because they were a group who had "been there / done that". Most who have not "been there / done that" need the heavy descriptive explainations so that they can better draw an image in their head so as to see these things happen better.
It comes down to "Ideal" or "Actual" knowledge.
Again, these are just my views on the subject and not pot shots.
:biggun:


----------



## Touch Of Death

bushidomartialarts said:


> I mean no offense, but I always considered 'master key moves' a bit of hokum.
> 
> To be clear, the concept is valid. Some moves in kenpo, or any other art, are bread-and-butter moves. You can use them in multiple scenarios. They develop solid understanding. Often, they are the ones simple enough to remember under stress and perform under suboptimal conditions.
> 
> The hokum comes from calling them 'master key moves'. Makes it sound so esoteric, so scholarly, so....worth paying an extra $50 a month so you can get the private lesson where they teach that.
> 
> Nobody ever signed up for a premium class called 'new ways to look at stuff you already know'....
> 
> Just my 3 cents canadian.


I'll give you that its just a some term, but if you analyze the idea you can really apply it to your own motion. What does your body to differently when you step through, step through kick, or step through punch? Why? can we close the gap? should they all have there own identity or just an extension off a single basic motion?
Sean


----------



## KENPOJOE

LawDog said:


> Without it nothing else within a given technique or basic movement will work properly.
> Examples,
> *power base,
> *transitionals,
> *impacting patterns,
> *Judo throws,
> *jujitsu locks,
> *suppressions,
> and the list goes on.


Hi folks!
Dear Prof. Cunningham,
EXACTLY! Although the terminology may vary, the elements of what makes for a given technique and other techniques that use those same moves that can be used a transitions into other techniques. Prof. Cunningham uses his "4 levels" curriculum to educate his students with a vocabulary they all can easily refer to in class!
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE

RevIV said:


> How do you determine where to make the relation? I see your 1 & 18- but then i look at 3, 18, 29 as having the same movements on the takedown. So what would that be considered? the others i get, but then we come back to the more oversimplified version of combo 6. wouldnt, 8,9,12,14,16,19,27 all be extensions of 6? so how would that be worded. I def. do not quite understand the terminology used in EPAK and so when we try to use the same language with SKK i get confused but would appreciate any help on explaining things better to students. thanks.


 Hi folks!
Dear Jesse,
As I mentioned in the original response: it is the basics that are dictated as part of a master key move,notable aombination of upper and lower body action. For example: if you were to see me standing in a left halfmoon stance with a right upward block [#5 block from 8 point blocking system].You, as a SKK lineage person, might identify it as the master key move for combination #4 or a move taken out of 2 pinan [upward block [back hand] which is followed by spear hands or punches depending on your orientation. [alternating upward blocks  followed by groin then face/throat strike] See how the same position frozen in time can be applied in two different places with different subsiquent moves?

In regards to your combination mention: the takedowns are different in the fact that in 3,we use a "reverse cover step" to get out of the way and drop an opponent on his back as opoposed to 18 where we use a "retreating/reverse step through/step back" to pull the opponent forward on all his hands and knees [but both use shoulder grabs:so, could  we call this a form of "catagory completion" because it shows us opposite takedowns with opposite responses?]{3=right hand grabs opponent shoulder from rear side vs 18=left hand grabs left shoulder from front} Do you see where i'm going with this?
You mention about #6,which shifts our body out of the way to our left [9 o'clock] out of way  of our opponent's punch if we do the original horse stance version,if we thand in a natural stance [shoulder width] we have to step to 9 with our left foot into horse stance and bring our right leg to flamingo position to acheive that effect as we kick. in #12, we are starting with a "mirror image of #6" by picking up our LEFT foot to flamingo as we shift to 3 O'CLOCK as we execute a left front ball kick to our opponent's groin. we then spin after kicking our opponent in the groin, stopping his forward momentum and having him bend over at the waist from the kick, we can now execute right spinning back kick. If we did all our combinations on both sides, the answers would come to us easier. Also, if we tried to do our combinations to the opposite of the originally intended side [attacking inside instead of outside and vice versa] then more answers would be forthcoming as well!
originally, I have #8 and #9 starting with steping with your right foot to 3 o'clock with a left knife hand block [prof cunningham would be able to confirm the older versions of the combinations as well because he was one of my original kenpo/kempo instructors after Ed Hosmer left my studio]. I concur on 9 being an extention of 8 [as well as being the end of a kenpo technique but the beginning of a jujutsu technique!]{you'll have to call me or pm me to get more from me on that!}
#14 has 2 versions [horse stance & Half moon] to teach you how to execute the "scissors kick" from either stance.
Again, I do agree with you seeing that in many combinations the front ball kick is the "master key basic" that guides subsiquent actions in a given technique.
Thankfully,Jesse,Mr. Parker's books are available so you understand the various terms to enable you to have a greater understanding of the "vocabulary of motion"
As opposed to Prof. Cunningham's "4 level" curriculum, that is only available to NEKICK instructors and students,Mr. Parker's material is easily available in major commercial venues and anyone can use it as they see fit.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE

LawDog said:


> I guess it can come down to this,
> those who really have fought tend to keep the discriptive language more plain and those who have not tend to over kill a subject.
> The early SKK boys did not have to use those over complicated discriptive sentances between each other because they were a group who had "been there / done that". Most who have not "been there / done that" need the heavy descriptive explainations so that they can better draw an image in their head so as to see these things happen better.
> It comes down to "Ideal" or "Actual" knowledge.
> Again, these are just my views on the subject and not pot shots.
> :biggun:


 Hi folks!
By the same token, I've seen instructors say in class "just do it" because either they had a limited education, could not convey sophistocated ideas, or their instructors didn't teach that to them because they weren't taught that way. I've been in classes where if you asked a question on how somwthing was done, some instructors would just hit you and say "like that!" and either you got the idea, paid attention to detail, and practiced it exactly that way in the hopes of "getting it", on the negative side, the perosn hit you to intimidate you into not asking questions because they simply weren't smart enough to actually answer it! Foreign instructors with limited communication skills were at a loss to elaborate on subtleties when asked. If your instructor's master had a 6th grade education, there was a good chance he couldn't grasp the advanced  concepts so he reverted back to "i'll just keep hitting him and maybe it will work!" Many a time over my martial arts career I've seen the "Mushroom Syndrome" where students are "kept in the dark and fed Sh...fertilizer". IMHO,Ed Parker was an intelligent man who saw this occur and wanted to "simplify" the laws of physics in martial arts to "simple terms" that the common man could understand. some consider it "complicating kenpo" including one of my instructors. That was his perogative to feel that way, I disagreed. It didn't mean that I didn't learn many things from him, I just found I could explain it well because of the way I was taught Mr. Parker's system and terminology/logic.
As someone who as "beentheredonethat" in regards to actual confrontations, i use both teaching models depending on the student I teach,but find the EPAK model of teaching easier for students to grasp the material.
But not everyone wants that. A friend told me of his engineer friend who went to a kenpo class but came away disinterested. When asked, the engineer said "I think all day, I just want a physical activity where I can just "punch and kick" and not have to think." The kenpoist brought the man to another arts class and the man was estactic! He was just a number in a line doing the same 5 or 6 things over and over and was perfectly content. different strokes for different folks.
i hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## ackks10

hokum?? that would be a great name for a school, "hokum karate school"
i think its funny,


----------



## graychuan

This same discussion(or a version of it) was discussed about a year ago. I posted a quote from Jou, Tsung Hwa's book ,Tai Chi: The way to Rejuvenation , which I will repost here.This 'Master Key' thing is not a new concept...it applies to all arts in general...



_"The Tao of Tai-Chi Chuan Way to Rejuvenation&#8221; Jou, Tsung Hwa. Edited by: Shoshana Shapiro, Ph.D. 1981 _

_There is a Master Key to Tai-Chi Chuan. Possessing it, if we are willing to devote time and energy to practice, we can continue to make progress throughout life to the limits of our natural ability. Without this key, we can only hope to improve our technique to a certain level, and then will "sign away our time," as the Song of Thirteen Postures says. The Master Key defines the art of Tai-Chi Chuan. We can do the forms, the "ch'uan," and even practice a variety of principles such as slowness, relaxation, straight spine, and certain hand positions. We can even reach high technical achievement; but without the Maser Key, we should not call our art "Tai-Chi Chuan." _

_*The Master Key is not related to any particular style. Instead, it makes one family of all diverse forms* of Tai Chi. The forms and styles are analogous to rooms in the same hotel. Each room has a key whose superficial appearance differentiates it from all others, and provides the guest with access to that room, and to no other. Problems arise when guests begin thinking their room is best, and the particular bumps and valleys, notches and grooves, straight or contoured edges in their key are essential, and should appear in everyone's key. As the external differences are given greater significance. "Tai-Chi hotel" turns into "Chuan Condominiums." All the guests try their keys in one another's doors and say, "Your room is no good because my key doesn't open your door, and I know my key works." This is happening among some Tai-Chi players today. Adherents of various styles become involved in describing individual differences as if they were fundamental. One might say, " The Key to Tai-Chi Chuan has five notches of increasing depth in its upper edge&#8221;; another might counter, "The upper edge of the key must be smooth to permit it to turn either way." When instructors, who may have been misled by their teachers, focus on the unique configuration of their own "keys," students are easily fooled, and mimic the person at the front of the class instead of seeking to apply the Master Key for themselves. However, just as the manager of a hotel has one master key which unlocks all doors, there is one Master Key to Tai-Chi Chuan that reveals which bumps and valleys in individual keys are merely superficial differences, and which are common to all other styles, and therefore define the essence of the art. _

_The Master Key to Tai-Chi Chuan, *is so complete that it contains all other principles within it*, yet so simple that some people will hear and laugh, some will acknowledge it yet forget to practice it, and only a few will achieve mastery with it. Yet anyone can hear and immediately have some understanding of it. What is the Master Key? You do not have to take my word for it: I did not originate it. It has existed since ancient times, distinguishing Tai Chi from other "ch'uan." I only wish to emphasize it so Tai-Chi players of *all styles can see the common ground defining their practice, and can work together toward mastery.*_


----------



## sifubry

I think that applying the concepts of master moves (and other Parker-isms) can only enhance the understanding of SKK. I agree that it is a simple art but under the hood, it contains some great principles that need to be identified by the practitioner. Perhaps it is artifacts from an older art.

It is easier to adapt a technique to a situation when you have "theory" and technique relationships (ie master keys) behind you. The body responds better if the mind is familiar with principles of body movement and technique families. If the body moves A when it usually should do B, you're okay with it.

Seeing the art you have in broad terms or 3,000 ft view (as we say in corporate world), you see a different picture. There's concepts and trends that appear not only in techniques but also in kata. Then the kata become more important as resources. You can also "fix" things that were taught wrong or remembered wrong. . . or you can apply an option.

For instance Combo 6 is very similar to an EPAK technique. I don't know the name of it but after the kick you step in and chop. I have a variant 6 with a back fist. The chop seems a better fit. Was I taught wrong? Who knows and who cares? It opened my mind.

My pet project is going through Infinite insights and GM parker's Encyclopedia and apply it to SKK. Not to make SKK into EPAK but to glean his genius and see if it can improve my art for me. Things like Gaseous expansion, master key moves, etc. give names to the intangible concepts floating around SKK. Giving something more structure isn't a bad thing if it helps one understand better.

Just my two cents.


----------



## still learning

Hello, Master Keys can be different to each person...too

One key will not fit all......each key will lead to another key....

Sometimes good to be "keyless"  ...like water in a glass....

Aloha,   ....locksmiths can dulicate just about any key today!!


----------



## shaolinmonkmark

still learning said:


> Hello, Master Keys can be different to each person...too
> 
> One key will not fit all......each key will lead to another key....
> 
> Sometimes good to be "keyless" ...like water in a glass....
> 
> Aloha, ....locksmiths can dulicate just about any key today!!


 


i am SKK, and i will close it here for all KEMPOISTS:

"Different Strokes for Different Folks!"
LOL!!!!


----------



## kenpo3631

I love to read these boards. I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo. Where was the use of these terms back in the 70's, 80's & 90's? It seems that folks, by stealing Mr. Parker's terms and attaching them to SKK form & techniques (combinations) somehow quantifies these, IMHO, antiquated and partial techniques (combos). 

I don't know, if Villari was such a "Master" why didn't he think of such terms? I've seen clips of Brassard, why doesn't he give credit where credit is due? 

For those that will say "who cares, it's just terminology, what's the big deal" The big deal is Parker formulated it for "his" Art and to not credit him is wrong. Besides, if you want to use all the Parker teminology, why not just study Parker Kenpo?


----------



## marlon

I actually do not use the Parker terminology so much partly because I am not an EPAK person and perhaps do not get it so well.  It seems a little over specialized for my tastes. I have found that it is mostly the EPAK people who use ( and at times insist) on using Ed Parker's terminology. Skk does not have the structured set in stone creation the EPAK is, but there are strong principles inherent in the system distinct from others and valid in it's own right without takng anything from EPAK. Sif Bry simpley said that he wanted to look through the understanding found in Infinite Insights and see if he can deepen his understandng of skk with it.  When I first looked into he Villari history I felt ashamed and looked around to find a way out. In the end my investigation led me frmly back to skk. It is the style that has everything I want when trained properly.  I love it and stake my life on it.  That does not mean tha t I do not listen to Doc, or that when I spar with kyokushin people or when a taiji person tea ches somethng valid that is different but can match my skk that I do not learn; and, because I learn from outside skk that does not invalidate the system.  I will say that those who cannot learn from outside their own system have closed themselves of a great deal and do no beneft to their students nor do they honour their systems founderand this would be especially true of any Chow related art with EPAK way up there.  It is certanly not what GM Parker did in his life
respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Milt G.

bushidomartialarts said:


> I mean no offense, but I always considered 'master key moves' a bit of hokum.
> 
> To be clear, the concept is valid. Some moves in kenpo, or any other art, are bread-and-butter moves. You can use them in multiple scenarios. They develop solid understanding. Often, they are the ones simple enough to remember under stress and perform under suboptimal conditions.
> 
> The hokum comes from calling them 'master key moves'. Makes it sound so esoteric, so scholarly, so....worth paying an extra $50 a month so you can get the private lesson where they teach that.
> 
> Nobody ever signed up for a premium class called 'new ways to look at stuff you already know'....
> 
> Just my 3 cents canadian.


 
I fully agree, Mr. Brick.
Well put.

Yes, A.K. has a terminology that is pretty particular to them.  Just a way to identify certain key elements of a movement or technique.  "Master Key" is just such a term.

It can be easier to "sell", learn and understand a concept if it has its own "buzz phrase".  Overall the terms have made AK and EPAK appear more exclusive.  Not all of the concepts are exclusive to them, and are taught in some other way in many other martial arts systems.

It does make some of those concepts easier to understand for many.  All new and "unique" stuff?  Not most of it.  It is just the "packaging".  

Good post, thank you.
Milt G.


----------



## Milt G.

kenpo3631 said:


> I love to read these boards. I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo. Where was the use of these terms back in the 70's, 80's & 90's? It seems that folks, by stealing Mr. Parker's terms and attaching them to SKK form & techniques (combinations) somehow quantifies these, IMHO, antiquated and partial techniques (combos).
> 
> I don't know, if Villari was such a "Master" why didn't he think of such terms? I've seen clips of Brassard, why doesn't he give credit where credit is due?
> 
> For those that will say "who cares, it's just terminology, what's the big deal" The big deal is Parker formulated it for "his" Art and to not credit him is wrong. Besides, if you want to use all the Parker teminology, why not just study Parker Kenpo?


 
Hello,
I think I understand what you are getting at and agree.  Mostly. 

However, everything came from somebody.  To give credit to each individual whenever you use a certain word, phrase, technique, kata, etc... it would constitute having to research almost all that we say, do and practice...  Not to mention the time it would take.  A three hour seminar could become four or five hours to give all the credit that is due to all of those individuals that were involved in the teachings being imparted. 

I think the Parker terminology is well thought out and makes sense.  I do not use it myself, much, as I do not explain things in exactly the same way.  They can be helpful to get a point across though, especially to some.

Over time I feel the "terminology" will be applied to many different Kenpo systems.  Perhaps other arts as well.  They may just become universal. 
It is helpful to know where they came from.

I do use the "Marriage of Gravity" term at times.  It just makes sense and gets the point across, as many of the terms do.  They appear logical and well thought out.  I do not give Mr. Parker credit for it every time I use it.  And did Ed Parker come up with all of these terms "himself"???  While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker, I do think that much of the Kenpo we know was influenced, heavily, by the ground floor senior students that were with him in the early days.  Perhaps some of his senior students should get the credit, if it was they who really "invented" the phrase?

An interesting thought, thank you.
Milt G.


----------



## sifubry

kenpo3631 said:


> I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo.



Since it was my comment that probably led to this I'll respond. I have no intention of stealing his terminology or not giving credit where credit is due. What I find is his concepts help me explore techniques, not just for Shaolin Kempo, but for my other arts too. It helps me think logically about martial movements. I also use concepts and terminology from other arts to explore Kempo.

Though we may disagree on my authority to use the products of his great mind to help me, I must ask why he wrote the books if that wasn't his intention. His terminology and concepts work best with his art, but it can also awaken observations and exploration for all artist.

Admittedly, SKK is light on details, theory and terminology but like all kempo derived from Hawaii, it has a certain commonality with its sister and brother arts. People may disagree but I see it. (Then again, my eyes may be playing tricks on me.)

I see this argument akin to telling me I can't use Cognitive Development in my Kempo because it is someone else's theory. Or that I can't use Stretching Routines from wrestling because it's not Kempo.

Anyway, I am sadden that you see it as stealing. That is not my intention.


----------



## mwd0818

13 years ago I was introduced to a bit of American Kenpo (Derived from Ed Parker, but not his).  I appreciated the complexity and terminology - it helped explain things that I felt, or was already doing, but provided a clean, concise term that defined it - something that SKK did not.  Since that time, I have trained in both, and my Kempo/Kenpo is better now than it ever has been because of my understanding of both systems.

I also teach the "Front Two-Knuckle Punch" as it was taught to me in Hapkido, not SKK or EPAK.  The reason - it's the same punch, but the Hapkido instructor presented the punch in a more concise manner than I had ever learned anywhere else.  I took that and ran with it.  It was my punch, but better defined.  I don't teach Hapkido, I don't talk about Hapkido in every class, but I do mention I trained in it, and I have no problem stealing teaching techniques to make my art better.

Mr. Parker was a master in terminology and was very thoughtful in translating his art to a written form to discuss it.  His students also became very good at it (respectfully, I think Doc might have surpassed his teacher in that regard).  If other students in other arts can benefit from his terms that are at least accepted in the "American" Kenpo community, I see no problem bridging them to the other side with Villari.  At the same time, if your Kempo was good, it should have had the elements already in the techniques, just maybe not a clear and concise term to define it.

As for what Mr. Parker "hid" in his art and it being more complex and complete than Mr. Villari's . . . well, I'm not sure how much was "hidden" in EPAK.  Instead, I think Mr. Parker simply approached the art and designed it thoughtfully form ALL of the information he had.  Mr. Villari was a little less academic.  You CAN go back and look at Category Completion, Family Groupings, Master Key Moves, the Web of Knowledge, etc.  It will provide insights into how the art was developed . . . something you don't get with SKK because it wasn't designed that way.  All of that info that is embedded in EPAK is simply there because that's how Mr. Parker created his art and as a student, its available for you to understand a bit deeper into each move.

As for "Master Key Moves" in SKK, well, they are there, but SKK wasn't designed around them, so finding them is an academic exercise that can be fun, but doesn't provide as much of the depth into the system as it would in EPAK.

To the reference of Combination #6 being similar to an EPAK technique from SifuBry, the suggestion was referencing either Delayed Sword or Sword of Destruction.   The first blocks to the inside, kicks and then chops with an Inverted Shuto to the neck, the second blocks to the outside, kicks and then chops with a regular Shuto to the Neck (right hand working on both).  Similar?  Sure, but I think the main point of Combination 6 is the idea of the "stop kick", something DS and SoD from EPAK ignore by use of the block.  Then again, I have two more versions of Combination #6 that have blocks in them too . . .

Oh, and Mr. Brassard does at least call his art now Shaolin American Kempo.


----------



## Yondanchris

DavidCC said:


> SKK is a very simple system.
> I think Nick Cerio summed it up best when he said
> 
> "hit him like this, then like this, then like this. See what I mean?"


 
I agree, simple and effective for self-defense. I am so thankful to have begun my martial arts journey in SKK. I in a similar way I tell my students 
this chesey phrase "1, a 2, a 3, a 4 watch his body hit the floor" as an example of the deadly simplicity of SKK.


----------



## Yondanchris

With my limited knowledge of the system I believe the "master key moves" at the colored belt level are: 

DM's: 2, 3, 8, 10, and 18

Kenpos: C, F, H *although they are not the same in every Dojo*

My humble and ignorant .02 cents

Chris


----------



## stickarts

I have had the good fortune to work with many high level people from many different arts and all the best do " steal " ideas and techniques from each other.  This is not stealing, it is learning. I do strongly believe proper credit should be given as to the source of material and / or  who taught you, however, no one need conform entirely to someone elses way if it is not a good fit for them. I think it is important to keep an open mind in approach. Different things work for different people at different times.


----------



## Touch Of Death

stickarts said:


> I have had the good fortune to work with many high level people from many different arts and all the best do " steal " ideas and techniques from each other.  This is not stealing, it is learning. I do strongly believe proper credit should be given as to the source of material and / or who taught you, however, no one need conform entirely to someone elses way if it is not a good fit for them. I think it is important to keep an open mind in approach. Different things work for different people at different times.


 New filters.
Sean


----------



## Yondanchris

Milt G. said:


> Hello,
> I think I understand what you are getting at and agree. Mostly.
> 
> However, everything came from somebody. To give credit to each individual whenever you use a certain word, phrase, technique, kata, etc... it would constitute having to research almost all that we say, do and practice... Not to mention the time it would take. A three hour seminar could become four or five hours to give all the credit that is due to all of those individuals that were involved in the teachings being imparted.
> 
> I think the Parker terminology is well thought out and makes sense. I do not use it myself, much, as I do not explain things in exactly the same way. They can be helpful to get a point across though, especially to some.
> 
> Over time I feel the "terminology" will be applied to many different Kenpo systems. Perhaps other arts as well. They may just become universal.
> It is helpful to know where they came from.
> 
> I do use the "Marriage of Gravity" term at times. It just makes sense and gets the point across, as many of the terms do. They appear logical and well thought out. I do not give Mr. Parker credit for it every time I use it. And did Ed Parker come up with all of these terms "himself"??? While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker, I do think that much of the Kenpo we know was influenced, heavily, by the ground floor senior students that were with him in the early days. Perhaps some of his senior students should get the credit, if it was they who really "invented" the phrase?
> 
> An interesting thought, thank you.
> Milt G.


 
I agree, I am going to be teaching a seminar in a few weeks and if I have to give a citation to each reference I am going to use it will be 90% giving kudos and 10% teaching...not effective 

Now being in the college realm I understand quotation and citation within academic or puplication works because of legal ramifications. 

but if I have to start giving kudo's every 2 seconds while teaching because im going to be sued by such and such and their brother I might as well quit now....


----------



## punisher73

I know that Doc (Dr. Ron Chapel) is on this forum and was a long time SGM Parker student.  He has said *many *times that the infinite insights were written mainly for NON-kenpo people to get them to see how kenpo thinks and structures things.  So why wouldn't other arts use the terminology?

Also, Doc has made it very clear that the "master key moves" in kenpo are a mental exercise that was taught in a commercial version of the art meant for the masses.  It wasn't supposed to be a hard and fast rule.  In EPAK, ALL 196 techinuqes (not counting the extendsions) are based off of 10 techniques.  What is amusing is that one of the master key techniques was "removed" from yellow belt and not taught in many schools.  Again, this was a mental exercise to get students to think and not something secret or set in stone.

Lastly, Jim Brassard is ranked in EPAK and teaches it alongside SKK.  So how is it stealing if you advertise that fact?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Thats yours and Doc's opinion, but the concept of master Key can aid everyone.
Sean


----------



## punisher73

Touch Of Death said:


> Thats yours and Doc's opinion, but the concept of master Key can aid everyone.
> Sean


 
Explain how (outside of a mental exercise) as it is defined and used in EPAK? I don't believe that it really does when you get down to defining what is meant by a MASTERY KEY. As in the key/technique/idea that opens all locks as it applies to the self-defense techniques. I do believe that there are some highlighted in the techniques but not as the concept as EPAK defines it as 10 techniques are the basis for the whole system (including one technique so important it isn't even taught in some lineages).


----------

