# Kenpo and Tai Chi



## 8253 (Feb 27, 2004)

Just curious as to the thoughts of everyone as to wether or not Kenpo has some of the fundamental elements of Tai Chi, such as energy flow, and breathing excercises.


----------



## pete (Feb 27, 2004)

everything in life has the fundamental elements of tai chi, and as such can be developed through applying the principles to your activity, or inactivity as the case may be...


----------



## Doc (Mar 4, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Just curious as to the thoughts of everyone as to wether or not Kenpo has some of the fundamental elements of Tai Chi, such as energy flow, and breathing excercises.


Hey Pete.

As I was taught Kenpo IS Tai Chi (grand ultimate), or more correctly Tai Chi Chuan. The Chaun component (fist) is the application phase after you learn HOW to move. In fact Jimmy Woo when he taught Tai Chi Chaun/Kenpo for Ed Parker Sr. always said they were the same, it was only a matter of the methodology in teaching and training. Ed Parker once described Kenpo as "Dynamic Tai Chi Chaun."

In SubLevel Four each technique is a mini tai chi from with all the proper body mechnics, counter resistance, and breathing found in traditional tai chi, and is utilized in what we call S.E.T. training for Singular Execution Training. This methodology can produce many of the aspects and benefits of training with a partner when none is available. Much like what typically is seen in tai chi practice with the focus on application as well as proper breathing and body mechanics.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 4, 2004)

Dr. Chapél 

Thank you for posting this information. I have wondered this question in the past. I have remembered reading before how there were times where Mr Parker and also Mr Tatum have hit people using their chi. There was something i had read before where Mr Tatum was talking to Mr Parker about this and Mr Parker had commented that at a certain age Mr Tatum would know this ability. Then at a seminar  (i think it was in chili) Mr Tatum was showing something to a group of people and when the attacker came at him he was able to neutrelize his delivery system and repel the attack and everyone swears he didnt touch him  physically. But the attacker said he felt him as if he did.
It reminds me of the displacement of force from Tai Chi where you are able to allow the chi to come out of you.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 




			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Hey Pete.
> 
> As I was taught Kenpo IS Tai Chi (grand ultimate), or more correctly Tai Chi Chuan. The Chaun component (fist) is the application phase after you learn HOW to move. In fact Jimmy Woo when he taught Tai Chi Chaun/Kenpo for Ed Parker Sr. always said they were the same, it was only a matter of the methodology in teaching and training. Ed Parker once described Kenpo as "Dynamic Tai Chi Chaun."
> 
> In SubLevel Four each technique is a mini tai chi from with all the proper body mechnics, counter resistance, and breathing found in traditional tai chi, and is utilized in what we call S.E.T. training for Singular Execution Training. This methodology can produce many of the aspects and benefits of training with a partner when none is available. Much like what typically is seen in tai chi practice with the focus on application as well as proper breathing and body mechanics.


----------



## pete (Mar 5, 2004)

What's up Doc!  

I've found on my exploration through Kenpo and Tai Chi that there are some basic contradictions between the 2 arts, contradictions that i am sure did not exist in the kenpo taught to you by Mr Parker, nor exist in your Sub-Level 4 system.  Unfortunately, I have access to neither, but do have access to a gifted and wonderfully open minded Tai Chi Master and equally competent and knowledgeable Kenpo professor.  I have the distinct pleasure of pursuing my journey with invaluable guidance from these 2 men. 

One point that I feel needs to be made is that applying Tai Chi principles to Kenpo does not equate with "doing Kenpo slowly".  The original poster asked about energy flow, and many of the forms, techniques, and drills learned in "most" kenpo schools do not cultivate energy flow as you would find in a Tai Chi practice... at least not without some modifications.  This is what I am working on, finding where the modifications can be made so that it remains kenpo and yet adheres to Tai Chi principles. 

Tai Chi requires attention to many anatomical and philosophical details, far too many to list here without risking the absence of key points... but a Tai Chi form requires the inclusion of 13 postures: Ward-off, Rollback, Press, Push, Pluck, Split, Elbow Strike, Shoulder Strike, Advance, Retreat, Look Left, Look Right, and Central Equilibrium.  These postures will demonstrate the principles of yielding, sticking, adhering, listening, leading, relaxing, turning, and rooting.  Without this, you are not practicing Tai Chi.

Doing Kenpo slowly is just that.

pete


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 5, 2004)

I disagree.  Based on physical appearance, it may appear that Kenpo is similar what is commonly known as the Style of Tai Chi Chuan, but internally, things are very different.

Marty


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 5, 2004)

I believe that you can cultivate chi whether you are practicing tai chi or kenpo. I have read examples of it happening after long term practice in various arts not just tai chi.

I think you should also take another look at kenpo too.


Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> What's up Doc!
> 
> I've found on my exploration through Kenpo and Tai Chi that there are some basic contradictions between the 2 arts, contradictions that i am sure did not exist in the kenpo taught to you by Mr Parker, nor exist in your Sub-Level 4 system.  Unfortunately, I have access to neither, but do have access to a gifted and wonderfully open minded Tai Chi Master and equally competent and knowledgeable Kenpo professor.  I have the distinct pleasure of pursuing my journey with invaluable guidance from these 2 men.
> 
> ...


----------



## pete (Mar 5, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Based on physical appearance, it may appear that Kenpo is similar what is commonly known as the Style of Tai Chi Chuan, but internally, things are very different.
> 
> Marty



Kenpo can be internalized, and with correct practice and proper focus what is external becomes internal, and what is internal becomes external... it is more like the external within the internal and the internal within the external... the yin within the yang, and the yang within the yin.  This is called Harmony.

i venture to say that you cannot accompish this by simply softening kenpo, or doing the forms slowly, which is a common misconception.




> I believe that you can cultivate chi whether you are practicing tai chi or kenpo. - Chicago Green Dragon



agree.  its in the HOW you practice kenpo.  you can also cultivate chi by raking leaves, shoveling snow, bowling, playing lawn darts, painting the fence, waxing the car, flying a kite, etc... remember wu-wei, it not just about what you are doing, but also what you are not doing.  :asian:


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 5, 2004)

Ok.  Let's say I buy that, pete.  But, if you change what's happening internally and going more internal vs. external.  are you still doing Kenpo?  I would say no.  Also, from my experience, the structure internally of the body and how it is used is very different from Kenpo vs. Tai Chi.  Granted as one trains in kenpo over numerous years one will become more internal, but the intent is still on the external.
If one practices Kenpo, and internally change the structure to match that in tai chi, are you still practicing Kenpo?  Furthermore, due to the structural change, the energy will flow differently through the body can it still be considered Kenpo, or is it now tai chi?  Additionally, the use of push hands training to develop sensitivity is traditionally tai chi, not kenpo.  Even though long time training in kenpo will produce some sensitivity, it is not a primary focus of training and a means of combat, rather, "sparring" is.  Certainly, a kenpo stylist can incorporate push hands type training into their practice or even system.  The approach to combat of kenpo vs. tai chi is very different as well.

To me, Kenpo is Kenpo and tai chi chuan is tai chi chuan.

Marty


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> What's up Doc!
> 
> I've found on my exploration through Kenpo and Tai Chi that there are some basic contradictions between the 2 arts, contradictions that i am sure did not exist in the kenpo taught to you by Mr Parker, nor exist in your Sub-Level 4 system.  Unfortunately, I have access to neither, but do have access to a gifted and wonderfully open minded Tai Chi Master and equally competent and knowledgeable Kenpo professor.  I have the distinct pleasure of pursuing my journey with invaluable guidance from these 2 men.
> 
> ...


Well Pete, I have to say I mostly agree with your perspective. Not withstanding my first teacher Ark Yuey Wong, my conversations with my original training partner his nephew Douglas Wong, Jimmy Woo, and my relationship with notables like Share Lew, and more recently my long friendship with Pan Ying Dunn, The differences are rooted in the knowledge and history of the teacher, and their assumptions.

Kenpo is NOT even Kempo, nor is Tai Ji Quan just, Tai Ch Chaun. My point is both arts are defined by the teacher and practitioner and there is no definitive one version of either anymore, philosophically or physically. Are they the same or different? I was told it all depends upon the limitations of the teacher. I was fortunate enough to study and associate with some of the greatest of the previous millennium. To a person they all had the same opinion; "They are the same."

But when I speak of kenpo as I understand and teach it, I talk about energy flow, posture, counter resistance, space dominance, etc and most modern "kenpo people" think I'm nuts, thus the "mad" Kenpo Scientist" handle. Both terms have become generic today, therefore MOST have no idea of what they are getting beyond what they are told by their teacher - just like me.

What MOST understand of "kenpo" would not be the same as what MOST consider "tai chi," -

but that is their problem.


----------



## Rainman (Mar 5, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> Ok.  Let's say I buy that, pete.  But, if you change what's happening internally and going more internal vs. external.  are you still doing Kenpo?  I would say no.  Also, from my experience, the structure internally of the body and how it is used is very different from Kenpo vs. Tai Chi.  Granted as one trains in kenpo over numerous years one will become more internal, but the intent is still on the external.
> If one practices Kenpo, and internally change the structure to match that in tai chi, are you still practicing Kenpo?  Furthermore, due to the structural change, the energy will flow differently through the body can it still be considered Kenpo, or is it now tai chi?  Additionally, the use of push hands training to develop sensitivity is traditionally tai chi, not kenpo.  Even though long time training in kenpo will produce some sensitivity, it is not a primary focus of training and a means of combat, rather, "sparring" is.  Certainly, a kenpo stylist can incorporate push hands type training into their practice or even system.  The approach to combat of kenpo vs. tai chi is very different as well.
> 
> To me, Kenpo is Kenpo and tai chi chuan is tai chi chuan.
> ...



American Kenpo is not traditional.  It is conceptual.  Structural alignment is structural alignment.  Either one is just a vehicle-  how many ways can the same thing be done?  Just different methods to get there-


----------



## Gary Crawford (Mar 5, 2004)

I love Tia Chi as an art,but is too intelectual to be a fighting skill.Kenpo is a huge "shortcut" to what Tia Chi's ultimate reality is.INHO, the chinese think too much when it comes to quick phisical reactions,at the same time I also know that kenpo would have never evolved to what it is without some great chinese minds considering combat realities.So with that said.The groundwork has been done,let Kenpo move forward.I beleive that is what Mr Parker has tried to teach us all.


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2004)

=====


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> I love Tia Chi as an art,but is too intelectual to be a fighting skill.Kenpo is a huge "shortcut" to what Tia Chi's ultimate reality is.INHO, the chinese think too much when it comes to quick phisical reactions,at the same time I also know that kenpo would have never evolved to what it is without some great chinese minds considering combat realities.So with that said.The groundwork has been done,let Kenpo move forward.I beleive that is what Mr Parker has tried to teach us all.


Whose Tai Chi is too intellectual? Yours? What you know of it? Not a fighting skill? You mean as you know it? Now what kenpo is a short cut? Yours? Which Chinese think too much? The ones you know? Mr. Parker tried to teach all of who? You seem to "know" an awful lot about alot of different things. Your statement is full of sweeping genralities that makes assupmtions about all of these things and although I do not know what you know, I do know what you don't know. You don't know the kenpo I was taught, anymore than I know yours, if any. I've been around a while and I never make assumptions about what others might know in any art. I also know your assumptions about what Ed Parker wanted from his various interpretations of Kenpo, specifically mine, is wrong. I do not discount your knowledge but lets leave the, "all kenpo, all tai chi, all Ed Parker wanted," out of the discussion, unless you are "all knowing." 

Generalities about specific things lead to confusion.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Mar 6, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Whose Tai Chi is too intellectual? Yours? What you know of it? Not a fighting skill? You mean as you know it? Now what kenpo is a short cut? Yours? Which Chinese think too much? The ones you know? Mr. Parker tried to teach all of who? You seem to "know" an awful lot about alot of different things. Your statement is full of sweeping genralities that makes assupmtions about all of these things and although I do not know what you know, I do know what you don't know. You don't know the kenpo I was taught, anymore than I know yours, if any. I've been around a while and I never make assumptions about what others might know in any art. I also know your assumptions about what Ed Parker wanted from his various interpretations of Kenpo, specifically mine, is wrong. I do not discount your knowledge but lets leave the, "all kenpo, all tai chi, all Ed Parker wanted," out of the discussion, unless you are "all knowing."
> 
> Generalities about specific things lead to confusion.


Quite the emotional one arn't you?My post was IMHO(in my humble opinion) and in no way was ment to insult you.I don't mind if ANYONE wishes to dissagree with me,but you don't need to lash out at me.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Quite the emotional one arn't you?My post was IMHO(in my humble opinion) and in no way was ment to insult you.I don't mind if ANYONE wishes to dissagree with me,but you don't need to lash out at me.


Sorry sir, no lash intended. It just seems strange in light of all written that the thread appeared to digress back to broad assumptive strokes when specifics about what we do would be so much more informative for all of us.  I also must admit that I do perk up when someone presumes to know what my friend and teacher wanted for everyone. But of course you are entitled to your opinion, but perhaps the thread would be better served if you explained why you reached the conclusions that you have on the various subjects, including Ed Parker Sr's. goals. Once again, no lash.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 6, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> most modern "kenpo people" think I'm nuts, thus the "mad" Kenpo Scientist" handle.



Here here!! And I mean that with the utmost respect Mr. Chapel. I wish I had a fraction of your knowledge about Kenpo.   :asian:


----------



## Sigung86 (Mar 6, 2004)

Actually, with utmost respect intended.... He's pretty smart for an old guy!
artyon:


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 7, 2004)

I agree with you the Dr. is very intelligent and I welcome his wisdom.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Actually, with utmost respect intended.... He's pretty smart for an old guy!
> artyon:


----------



## Doc (Mar 7, 2004)

Although clearly age and smarts are mutually exclusive conditions, with no real guarantee that being older makes you smart, or being smart means you have to be old. 

But clearly age is a factor in life, if for no reason other than the acquired number of times over the years one has had the opportunity to be stupid and totally screw up.

Therefore it could be comfortably stated,  If one is older and smarter, it simply means they have made more mistakes, and been wrong more times, and fortunately learned from those errors.

So the secret is to;

1) Live long 

2) Make lots of mistakes, 

3) And most importantly, be able to recognize and learn from your own ignorance.

Or to put it another way,

Older smarter folks are just bigger screw ups who were smart enough to learn how dumb they were.  Ron Chapél 

I appreciate the kind comments from all of you, but especially from another old fart like Dan Farmer who is no slouch himself.


----------



## pete (Mar 8, 2004)

... ahh, but i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now~


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 8, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> American Kenpo is not traditional.  It is conceptual.  Structural alignment is structural alignment.  Either one is just a vehicle-  how many ways can the same thing be done?  Just different methods to get there-



No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment.  It depends on how you align your structure.  From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently.  Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense.  Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.

Too intellectual?  Ha.  Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon?  Think about it.

Marty


----------



## pete (Mar 8, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense.  Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.



it would actually make less sense if you couldn't, or point to a deficiencies in one or both of your practices.  depending on how you were taught each art, it might take a bit of work before banishing them to seperate rooms.


----------



## Rainman (Mar 8, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment.  It depends on how you align your structure.  From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently.  Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense.  Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.
> 
> Too intellectual?  Ha.  Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon?  Think about it.
> 
> Marty



No it depends on what principles you are using and what the situation calls for.    Think more clearly about your last line.   If your mind is indeed the most powerful weapon why would you argue for seperation?  Your fighting skills under duress are a culmination of all that you have learned.  In my experience with the taoist sytems the concepts I found there were easily added to my arsenal.  

Once you are conceptual in makes no sense to me to seperate anything.  What is natural is the equation formula...


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> No, structural alignment is not necessarily structural alignment.  It depends on how you align your structure.  From my experience, the structures are aligned differently and therefore used differently.  Using tai chi within a kenpo frame wouldn't make sense.  Using Kenpo within a tai chi frame wouldn't make sense.
> Too intellectual?  Ha.  Isn't our mind our most powerful weapon?  Think about it.
> Marty


From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement.

In Martial Science, much like other sciences, there is a direct cause and effect to all activity. Martial Science draws on many different scientific disciplines, but all are in some way related to one another through the conduit of human anatomy. There exists a significant cause and effect interaction between all the many parts of human anatomy whether static or in motion. In any examination of the many martial postures and their transitions, the efficacy of its many positions are predicated upon, among many factors, weight distribution and an exacting posture relative to the physical activity at hand.

The relative position of the feet to each other, and their movement, also significantly determines whether structural integrity is created or maintained. Lets discuss for a moment structural integrity in posture, movement, and weight distribution. Any variations in these categories beyond proper anatomical posture can diminish or enhance effectiveness on multiple levels offensively or defensively.

How you move your body in its entirety, and arms, feet, and even the head in particular, in martial science affects the stability of the complete body for a variety of reasons. For most this probably is not news. However what is probably new information to most is that some of the basic things taught in most martial arts fall quite comfortably into the negative and inefficient category. Surprisingly their effectiveness can be demonstrated to be much less than perceived. That is, when these things are tested in the light of reality, they fall well short of their well-intended goals. Lets us define efficiency relative to human physical activity in general, and martial science in particular.

Essentially, the human machine is a large gelatinous bag punctuated by multiple directionally dedicated and articulated appendages, connected by loose and flexible tissue. This semi solid shape is supported by an articulated and rigid substructure we call a skeleton.  This necessary substructure skeleton, supports the human body as the primary load bearing entity, but also simultaneously provides it with mobility and sustains its general shape. It also supplies the major structural frame for anatomical rigidity on demand.

This relationship between the sub-structure frame, (skeleton) the connecting tissues, (ligaments, muscle, tendons), and the containment vessel epidermis (gelatinous bag) have a constant and perpetually active interaction relationship from one jiffy millisecond to the next. The system software or brain constantly monitors all external stimuli from thousands of body sensors and subsequently makes thousands of minute adjustments every millisecond to allow the machine on one level to function intuitively, and on another, to take directed commands from the central processing unit simultaneously.

By its very evolutionary design the human body unit operates in one of two non-destructive modes, either operating efficiently, or inefficiently. The inefficient mode is termed Disassociated Anatomical Movement. In order to accomplish this, this extremely complex machine has an inherent ability to disconnect or create a more loose and flexible relationship between its many articulated parts, expressly for the purpose of performing movements and/or postures not necessarily anatomically structurally sound, but necessary for fluid human movement. Therefore by the very nature of the body, all movement is not necessarily effective, efficient, or even structurally sound, even though it may be performed quite easily. This is the reason humans do not move like rigid robots or automatons.

When any physical activity is taught with only an emphasis on conceptual movement or motion with no regard for anatomical structural requirements and physical mandates, than inefficient movement is the most likely results. The reason this can be confusing is because most martial arts instructors teach from this aesthetic perspective emphasizing the look over the proper anatomical execution to obtain the desired results.

A lack of knowledge has created a plethora of interpretations as numerous as there are instructors. Thus the western term martial art is indeed accurate because of this interpretive aesthetic perspective. Art, (in this instance artistic movement and postures) is clearly subjective, whereas martial science and its proper anatomical movement and postures are not. This explains why one martial art can have so many different interpretations from instructor to instructor, school to school, and even student to student.

Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an inefficient methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose disassociated mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.

As another example, when you walk backwards your arms do not swing naturally and balance is more difficult as a result. Additionally, moving forward aggressively without the ability to move your arms creates the same disassociated condition. The principle area affected in all of these situations begins with the Primary Disconnect Mechanism, the pelvic bone. The same holds true in any lateral movement as well.

However the converse of stepping backwards to meet resistance moving in the same direction as youre stepping, is stepping forward when you are being pulled forward. Both of these movements are inefficient and must have correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity.

Stepping rearward without the mechanism makes alignment impossible. Stepping forward however because the body functions to locomote forward naturally may create alignment, but only predicated on either how far or how many times you step, or if an additional correcting mechanism is involved.

Therefore to teach any execution that by necessity requires inefficient movement forward backward or laterally, first there must be recognition of these absolute anatomical facts, and second a mechanism must be inserted to compensate, re-connect, or re-associate the body unit into singular structural integrity for efficient transference of power, or to resist body mass driven assaults. Additionally as previously stated, proper weight distribution and postures are also mandated based on anatomical parameters, and not aesthetics.

Other good examples can be found in various forms of footwork taught in most traditional and non-traditional arts alike. Lateral and forward movements where feet move toward one another create similar results of instability and structural disassociation as stepping back. Although all of these activities are a staple of most arts, anatomically speaking, such maneuvers lack structural stability, absent a compensating mechanism.

What has happened is the step rearward has created the Disassociated Anatomical Condition, at the hips separating the lower platform (hips to the floor) from the upper (Hips to the shoulders) platform, causing them to work semi independently of each other with no shared structural integrity. Thus there is no significant stability to counter any realistic physical pressure from any angle, and specifically from the front.

The important thing to remember is that all rules of martial science are specific, and therefore apply to specific circumstances. Any variation of any portion of the body, no matter how minute, can cause a complete breakdown of structural integrity, as well as other anatomical properties. This means all methodologies have correcting mechanisms to compensate for inefficient movement or improper posture.

In martial science posture, there are rules relative to weight distribution and posture. The position and manner of the hands, head, shoulders, fingers, muscle tension, thought process, etc. in addition to weight distribution will ultimately determine whether you are correct structurally or not.

The Chinese arts of my experience are unique in that they actually teach both, transitioning from one extreme to the other in use, much like the human body does naturally in everyday situations as necessary on demand.

But I digress. You state you have some background in the Chinese Arts sir, however I would like to hear about your experience and expertise in Ed Parker Kenpo that allows you to make such a sweeping statement in your comparison of the, (what you suggest are) two different arts. The authorities I sited  were very definitive in their assertions, and although some have passed on, notables like Grandmasters Douglas Wong, Pan Ying Dunn, Share Lew, and Jimmy Woo are still available in Southern California for definitive discussions on the topic.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 8, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Subsequently, training in improper movements like stepping backwards into any stance as an example, is an inefficient methodology that is readily revealed in realistic practice and application. Using this most basic of footwork to obtain a stance causes the body to go into its loose disassociated mode to achieve the objective. The architectural human frame is designed to locomote forward partly deriving its balance from the swinging of the arm opposite the forward moving leg. Although the body can walk and move rearward, it does so inefficiently and in a definite disassociated mode.



So have you eliminated stepping backwards from the curriculum that you teach? Or do you teach correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity when you do have to step back?


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2004)

kenpo_cory said:
			
		

> So have you eliminated stepping backwards from the curriculum that you teach? Or do you teach correcting mechanisms to regain structural integrity when you do have to step back?


Well sir, to elliminate the ability to step in any directions would be 
self-defeating and much too limiting. Ed Parker Sr. taught me anatomical corrections when any inefficient movement must be performed by urgent necessity, or design and they are built into the basics at varying levels of execution. Good catch sir.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 8, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well sir, to elliminate the ability to step in any directions would be
> self-defeating and much too limiting. Ed Parker Sr. taught me anatomical corrections when any inefficient movement must be performed by urgent necessity, or design and they are built into the basics at varying levels of execution. Good catch sir.



Thank you for the clarification Mr. Chapel. As always I enjoyed your insight.  :asian:


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 8, 2004)

Since the human body comes in many forms and sizes, I would think there is no single equation to fit how all of them should act/react.

While it is interesting to know how the human body moves under load and no load, the same thing could be applied to the sport of bowling. However, I contend that while you could show someone what the exact proper mechanics are to throw a strike they will not beat the experienced bowler who has his/her own style, focus, and feeling.

This cannot be taught and I think it has an equal value to the application.


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 9, 2004)

Doc:

Quite a profile/resume you have.
I do not have quite a one.
I studied Kenpo Karate for 9-10 years, which also encorporated kenpo-jitsu (similar to jujitsu).
I studied shaolin tiger KF for 3 years.
What I train in now is:
Leung Sheung's Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu - 11years now.
Chen style TCC (Lao Jia)
Fu style Internal Martial Arts.
I am currently working towards my masters in (pure) mathematics.

I still cannot agree with this comment:
"From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement."
In my training, I assume that my body does not naturally do efficient movement.  Thus, I am training my body to do so, to be more efficent, on a consistent basis.

Does kenpo consistently work on:
Sung energy (relaxed, melting energy while in stances)?
Sensitivity training?
Tucking under the pelvis?
utilization of sensitivity and position vs. speed and power?
(There's more, but this is enough)
In my kenpo karate and external martial arts training, we did little of the above.  In my internal martial arts training, all on a regular basis.

If you do, then your kenpo is different from what I trained in.

Marty


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 9, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> Doc:
> 
> Quite a profile/resume you have.
> I do not have quite a one.
> ...



Is the tucking under the pelvis you mentioned the same as reverse abdominal breathing?


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 9, 2004)

No.

I do that in conjunction with my "pole standing" training though.  It helps me work on my rooting and work on the refinement of my structure.

Marty


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 9, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> I do that in conjunction with my "pole standing" training though.  It helps me work on my rooting and work on the refinement of my structure.
> 
> Marty



So it is separate? Do they both produce the same result? I have a friend that now trains in kenpo with me but has an Aikido background. He was discussing the principle of reverse abdominal breathing with me and said it is one of the main things that helps with chi. Is this true?


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 9, 2004)

Last post for today.

Yes, seperate.  I can tuck my pelvis under with regular abdominal breathing or reverse.  The reverse breathing helps me melt more as my abdomen goes out and I exhale;  I settle more with each breath.  This is my training experience.

Marty


----------



## kenpo_cory (Mar 9, 2004)

Thanks for sharing. Sorry I edited my post to include some other questions. I saw that you had answered my previous question clearly no and missed it.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Since the human body comes in many forms and sizes, I would think there is no single equation to fit how all of them should act/react.


Although the body does indeed have varying geometrical relationships, and variances in height, weight, etc, there is a structural sameness that makes it what it is. 


> While it is interesting to know how the human body moves under load and no load, the same thing could be applied to the sport of bowling.


No it cannot


> However, I contend that while you could show someone what the exact proper mechanics are to throw a strike they will not beat the experienced bowler who has his/her own style, focus, and feeling.
> This cannot be taught and I think it has an equal value to the application.


You are talking about tossing an object that leaves your physical control and therefore is affected by other physical laws in application. That has no relationship to the topic. Much like a pitcher who might have all the proper body mechanics to throw a ball at maximum efficiency, but lacks the hand eye coordination to throw a strike consistently. Those things are exclusive of the body mechanics of this conversation, therefore you are incorrect in all of your assumptions.


----------



## Doc (Mar 9, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> Doc:
> 
> Quite a profile/resume you have.
> I do not have quite a one.
> ...



I am very impressed by your work toward a masters in math. Too heavy for me.


> I still cannot agree with this comment:
> "From my experience there is only one way of aligning the human body for maximum efficiency. It either is or it isn't no matter what the activity. Physically the body only works in these two modes. Efficient or inefficient. One of extreme structural integrity and the other extreme of loose connectivity, or disassociated movement."
> 
> In my training, I assume that my body does not naturally do efficient movement.  Thus, I am training my body to do so, to be more efficent, on a consistent basis.


Well actually your body DOES know how to move efficiently, however we unlearn and are taught incorrect mechanics as we live our lives due to external influences and physical mandates of society at large.


> Does kenpo consistently work on:
> Sung energy (relaxed, melting energy while in stances)?
> Sensitivity training?
> Tucking under the pelvis?
> ...


you miss the point. You said "does kenpo.." its all about what we do as individuals according to what we were taught. I can say confidently that yes I do, although from what we consider a more modern, practical, efficient, and effective perspective. Although I don't pretend ownership of any interpretation, yes the Kenpo I was taught by Ed Parker Sr. IS different.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 10, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Although the body does indeed have varying geometrical relationships, and variances in height, weight, etc, there is a structural sameness that makes it what it is.
> 
> No it cannot
> 
> You are talking about tossing an object that leaves your physical control and therefore is affected by other physical laws in application. That has no relationship to the topic. Much like a pitcher who might have all the proper body mechanics to throw a ball at maximum efficiency, but lacks the hand eye coordination to throw a strike consistently. Those things are exclusive of the body mechanics of this conversation, therefore you are incorrect in all of your assumptions.



But it does have relation to the topic, because all of your motion up to the point of releasing the object has to be done correctly. Much in the same way when I transfer energy from my punch to someone's face, where his head goes after that is no always under my control. I would go further to say that a bowling lane never really changes as do the conditions in a battle.

How I step and approach the foul line in front of the bowling lane is just the same as how I would approach an opponent inasmuch as they both need to have proper technique.

But I say that if there is only one way to get from point A to B that is efficient, economizes motion, is the most powerful, and all that jazz, whether it is blocking a punch or transitioning into a strike, or rolling a bowling ball, that's fine and dandy but it still may not be the "best."

One certainly accomplishes a task but the other let's you be you. It's finding your own "constitution" as Shioda states. 

But enjoy your science.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 10, 2004)

Let me start by saying that my own resume is substantially smaller than Mr. Chapel's, and I make no claim to having even a fraction of the direct exposure to Mr. Parker that you have had.  I tip my hat in pure respect for your eriudite (sp?) presentation of plausible functional anatomy and biomechanics. That having been said...

In a specific conversation with Mr. Parker, Sr., about the similarities and differences/strengths and weaknesses between arts, he posited a metaphor that lingers in the back of my mind whenever I read these sorts of discussions.  He offered into the ring, "...would you go to a plumber for an electrical problem?", and elaborated that if one wanted to learn throwing sklils, study judo. If you want to focus on wristlocks and joint entrapment & manipulation, study the aikijujutsu systems. To develop a really nasty overhand right cross, box. My own humble experience with Traditional Chinese Medicine, Taoist theory, and Tai Chi Chuan is that the _main_ function of Tai Chi...that is to say, the most obvious reason for studying and practicing it...is to develop and expand the capacity of the bodies physical and energetic systems to process and move life force. Although many Tai Chi practitioners may be viable combatants, and Kenpoists may gather and move chi and blood, what is the main purpose of each art?  In my admittedly limited experience, Kenpo is the panultimate study of biomechanics for the express, contextual purpose of articulate motion in combat/self-defense.  Tai Chi, on the other hand, is for health and longevity.  Granted, not ONLY for that, as there are millions of people around the world who can (and will) do whatever they want with either art. But, despite your disdain for generalizations, they are a necessary component for participation in shared reality and/or communication, to the minimal extent it can be shared. 

And at the risk of sounding extremely crass and ridiculous, who's scarier to face in a dark alley...a Kenpo practitioner with rapid-fire combinations to the eyes, throat, groin and knees; or a slow-moving, deeply thoughtful push-hands wiz?  Yes, I know it's a generalization...but that sort of loops us back to that old word "most", as in "representative sampling".


----------



## pete (Mar 10, 2004)

Resumes not withstanding, I must respectfully disagree with much of what you say here.  I did not have the honor of meeting or learning directly from Ed Parker, however would question why he created such an eclectic art if his views were to seperate the so-called plumbing from the electrical work.  If we accept what is inferred from such a statement, then American Kenpo would not have been developed to include the locks, holds, manipulations, nerve strikes, take downs, along with the block-punch-kicks of basic karate.  

Further, stating that Tai Chi is simply for health and longevity is an incomplete description of the art.  The Tai Chi master that I have the honor of training under will go further by saying that the full health related benefits of Tai Chi cannot be realized without learning Tai Chi in its entirety, which includes the martial intent.

The original question posed in this thread was whether or not Kenpo had some of the fundemental elements of Tai Chi, such as energy flows... well, I maintain that you can enhance your Kenpo to do so, but if you learned Kenpo as I am, modifications are needed in anatomical structure (expand, sink, coil), bodily movement (one part moves, all parts move and single weightedness), and breathing. I am convinced that applying these and other principles associated with Tai Chi to Kenpo will allow one to cultivate chi, and not compromise Kenpo principles.   And at the risk of paraphrasing the good Doctor, well, they were at one time and to some students part and parcel of Ed Parkers American Kenpo.

Finally, the final scenario of who I'd rather face in a dark alley is irrelavant.  Neither Kenpo nor Tai Chi are arts of aggression, but rather arts of self defense and preservation.  Our Kenpo techniques are all against an aggressive provocator, as opposed to Sport Arts or Boxing where antagonistic behaviour is encouraged.  Therefore, I'd feel rather safe meeting up with either one.


----------



## Doc (Mar 10, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> Resumes not withstanding, I must respectfully disagree with much of what you say here.  I did not have the honor of meeting or learning directly from Ed Parker, however would question why he created such an eclectic art if his views were to seperate the so-called plumbing from the electrical work.  If we accept what is inferred from such a statement, then American Kenpo would not have been developed to include the locks, holds, manipulations, nerve strikes, take downs, along with the block-punch-kicks of basic karate.
> 
> Further, stating that Tai Chi is simply for health and longevity is an incomplete description of the art.  The Tai Chi master that I have the honor of training under will go further by saying that the full health related benefits of Tai Chi cannot be realized without learning Tai Chi in its entirety, which includes the martial intent.
> 
> ...



Very well said "Pete." I also thought I had made a distinction earlier in the thread between the health component "Tai Chi," and the little known and fairly secretive combat applications of "Tai Chi Chaun."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 10, 2004)

Well said. In reverse order (said the dyslexic)...

At the risk of sounding like the good doctor, stating that Kenpo and Tai Chi are arts of self-defense and preservation runs awfully close to being a gross generalization.  Many in the "traditional" arts poo-poo'd the Gracie Challenge when it hit the shores, including Tai Chi instructors...whose great-grandfathers in martial ways were veterans of multiple challenge matches. The early days of Kenpo saw not a few seniors with heavy ties to men of questionable professional activities, often relying on the violent capabilities of the system to aid in achieving their objectives. Nefarious and ill-meaning persons study the arts, too.  Wanna hear a good one? Just two weeks ago, a pacifistic friend of mine who practices BJJ and Muay Thai (paths commonly asssociated with aggro attitudes & behavior) had to sit on a Tai Chi _instructor_ with a shaved head and multiple racist tattoes at a private-professional college in Colorado...easy money would bet the BJJ guy started it, but it would be money lost to the house.

With respect to the eclectic nature of Kenpo, it has contained a comprehensive index of jujutsu-type techniques since before it hit Hawaii's shores...the same battlefield skills used by Samurai and foot soldiers on the _attacking_ side of feudal skirmishes, as on the _defending_ side.  We can offer a code of honor and ethics for students and screen for questionable intent, but it is up to the individual horse to drink.

And, as I made it a point to say throughout, I can only base my opinion on my own experiences. In Kenpo, there are moves embedded in some of the self-defense techniques that very much resemble postures from Tai Chi. Still, I have never seen a Yang style form in a Kenpo test.

I will say this to address your revivification of the threads original query: I started Tai Chi b/c a friend of minestudied it intensively while away at college, and came back with more cohesive overall body mechanics and technical congruency in his Kenpo then he had when he left...and he didn't practice his Kenpo at all while on this hiatus. By practicing some of the neat stuff in Tai Chi (sorry, I forget fancy & correct terms), I've seen improvements in my sparring skills for subtle evasions and redirections, in addition to an increased sensitivity to the relationship between my own body, and the attacks of my opponents.

As a final thought, the origins of both held mixed intent as the arts of warrior-priests.  The purpose of practice is to expand the size of the vessel, so it can hold more, and do more. Along the idea of taking a boy off the farm, both -- as in-depth studies of the interrelationships between mind and motion -- will always have an energetic expansion component that complements the martial, and a martial component practiced to challenge limitations and expand horizons that permits and invites the flow of the spiritual.

Confused by paradox and looking forward to your next insightful installment (I know that might sound sarcastic, but it's not...I really enjoy reading well-thought out and stated opinions),

D.

Rock on.


----------



## pete (Mar 11, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I started Tai Chi b/c a friend of mine studied it intensively while away at college, and came back with more cohesive overall body mechanics and technical congruency in his Kenpo then he had when he left...and he didn't practice his Kenpo at all while on this hiatus. By practicing some of the neat stuff in Tai Chi (sorry, I forget fancy & correct terms), I've seen improvements in my sparring skills for subtle evasions and redirections, in addition to an increased sensitivity to the relationship between my own body, and the attacks of my opponents.



This is exactly why I advocate crosstraining in Tai Chi, or better yet an integrated approach to Kenpo incorporating Tai Chi principles.  For the most part, and pardon my generalizations which are obviously based on my personal experiences and observations, Kenpo teaches us how to defend and retaliate using strong stances and multiple and varied natural weapons.  However, there is less emphasis on the body mechanics which move us from one place to the next. This is compounded by the premature addition of excessive speed and power that a student desires (too look cool) and an instructor may even encourage (to retain a student).  Kenpo stylists must learn at early stages how to shift their weight, step properly, achieve balance and whole body unity, and breathe.  That is why "slow Kenpo" is (a) difficult to do, (b) not a pretty sight, and (c) cannot, without the proper inclusion of tai chi principles, effectively be a conduit of internal energy.


----------



## wingchunner (Mar 11, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> 1.)  Well actually your body DOES know how to move efficiently, however we unlearn and are taught incorrect mechanics as we live our lives due to external influences and physical mandates of society at large.
> 
> you miss the point. You said "does kenpo.." its all about what we do as individuals according to what we were taught. I can say confidently that yes I do, although from what we consider a more modern, practical, efficient, and effective perspective. Although I don't pretend ownership of any interpretation, yes the Kenpo I was taught by Ed Parker Sr. IS different.


1.)  I disagree that our bodies innately know how to move, which seems to be what you are implying.  When I watch my nearly two year old daughter move, it's not out of efficiency, but out of emotion.  Her responses stem from emotion, thus, thought is not really put into how she is moving.

2.)  It's good that you practice those things I mentioned.  My kenpo karate experience didn't teach that.  How do you determine that something is more modern, practical, efficeint, and effective?  What is your baseline to verify what you have said?  Did Mr. Parker make it this way, or is this what you have done with what Mr. Parker taught you?

Marty


----------



## Doc (Mar 11, 2004)

wingchunner said:
			
		

> 1.)  I disagree that our bodies innately know how to move, which seems to be what you are implying.  When I watch my nearly two year old daughter move, it's not out of efficiency, but out of emotion.  Her responses stem from emotion, thus, thought is not really put into how she is moving.



Thought is NOT an issue but instead is the problem. We are taught certain movements by those who have no undestanding of efficient anatomical movement, and instead end up contridicting what is correct. The unknowledgeable teach anatomical movement from an aesthetic perspective, choosing to focus on how it looks rather than how to move.

But the analogy of a child's movements is not a good one. Left alone our children will grow up and, absent anatomical anomolies, will learn to walk properly without instruction as an example. An adult when threatened with external stymuli will, through startle reflex, move the body to protect itself without instruction. These synaptic pathways are sound and efficient and should be exploited rather than changed by intstructors with no knowledge of the physics of human anatomy. No, you are correct. The body does not instinctively know how to move offensively, but sound defensive mechanisms are inately "built in."



> 2.)  It's good that you practice those things I mentioned.  My kenpo karate experience didn't teach that.  How do you determine that something is more modern, practical, efficeint, and effective?  What is your baseline to verify what you have said?  Did Mr. Parker make it this way, or is this what you have done with what Mr. Parker taught you?
> Marty


Ed Parker was pure genius and was influenced by some of the best. His relationships with Ark Wong, Jimmy Woo, Lau Bun, Haumea Lefiti, James W. Woo, Share Lew, and others allowed him to glean the best information available of the "how." His quest, as I was taught, was to distinguish anatomical movements into the distinct categories that separate the "training" movements from the "application" movements, from the "cultural" movements. 

As I'm sure you know, these things are all taught together and the teacher utimately will distinquish these things only after many years of commitment to
their interpretation and descretion. Parker wanted to distill the cultural and time elements to focus on the "applications" more immediately while distinquishing the "training" methodologies, with only a hint of the previous "cultural" accoutrements out of respect for the source origins.

This produced a self-defense vehicle with a more immediate understanding of its proper use, as well as the training benefits inherent in the process of proper anatomical execution. This interpretation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo is not based on "abstract motion," but instead focuses on "efficient anatomical movement" and is NOT "Kenpo Karate" as most modern practitioners know it. Kenpo Karate is Parker's conceptually motion based commercial business model and by design is devoid of such information. 

However it is recognizable as being the original Chaun Fa/Chinese Kenpo and I, based on things Parker said to me call it Sublevel Four Kenpo externally to distinquish it from the many other Parker interpretations. I continue still to extraoplate information from my lessons from Parker and my previous lesson experiences with Ark Wong with the emphasis on quality and not quantity of students.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Oct 22, 2006)

note to mods- the last post I made here was two years ago and Doc replied with his dissagreement,that's fine. Doc dinging my rep points for this TODAY is abuse of the rep system.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Oct 22, 2006)

A retraction- I do not know who dinged me this time-Doc my apoligies


----------

