# Motion or Commercial Kenpo



## amk (Oct 13, 2002)

First off I am not putting anyone down, nor saying that any one is better than any one else. I have been fortunate to have trained with many different instructors one on one, and in seminars as well.

So let me ask this:

What is American Kenpo?

According to many, it is the Study of Motion. You learn techniques and the motion that is used in the techniques from 3 points of view, being 1st doing the technique (i.e. Delayed Sword), 2nd doing the attack (i.e. Front right hand lapel grab), and 3rd watching 2 other people practice the technique in 1st and 2nd person situations.

Now the time that I spent with Mr. Huk Planas, he told me and others that American Kenpo is: "The Study of Motion."

Mr. Planas talked about the old days and how they had 3-8 variations on every
technique, and when Mr. Parker wanted to make manuals, they then
condensed the information to make it more acceptable for a manual, which
was the way Mr. Parker thought he could spread the art further. He also added that
they all had writers cramp from just doing one variation. New techniques were created
to complete categories of motion.

This seems obvious to be a new system of learning Kenpo based on motion, which would be a "Motion Kenpo" or "Commercial Kenpo" system to me, whatever you want to call it. A system that was developed not inferior to anything else, as the quality of student does directly relate to the level that their instructor delivers to, and demands of their students.

Now according to Mr. Sean Kelley, Mr. Parker vary rarely taught after this new system was developed. The reason I can make this statement is that according to Mr. Kelley, Mr. Parker was on the Road with Elvis most of the time in the Early 70's, and that would mean that under the new guidelines that most of what was taught was based on Motion, not by Mr. Parker, but by his students. Mr. Parker's students were heavily involved in creating the new system, as Mr. Planas helped with the category completion, and writing of the technique manuals.

What does all of this mean?

Well basically it means that prior to this time period of the Early 70's when this was created, would have been different in the teachings. So if people like Dr. Chapél, Mr. Michael Pick, Sigung Steven LaBounty, etc. were studying Kenpo before this time frame it wouldn't have been "Motion Kenpo".

The main difference between the two can be summarized by the following viewpoints as well:
According to Mr. Planas: "Karate is supposed to be a secret, and if you do get in a situation that you have to use it, that surprise will be 10% of it, and the other 90% luck." "Their is no write or wrong way to do a technique, as long as you obey the rules of motion."

According to Dr. Chapél, American Kenpo Sub Level Four is learned and practiced in a way that forces you to do things that increase the likely hood of victory. Rearrangement and other aspects of "Motion Kenpo" are removed to stack the odds in your favor, like Positive and Negative Body Posture, Destructive Sequencing, and other aspects that can't be rearranged with out removing those advantages given to us through sciences of body mechanics. In my time with Dr. Chapél, he has taught me to train under stressful realistic situations, and deal with people that really know how to attack properly, or even at an expert level where they grab you in a wrist lock before you know it, and then what to do. That is different than my time with Mr. Planas, as he liked to talk about reading (reading the attack), and he recommends that you train using a two step approach, to give you time to read the attack.

Dr. Chapél, has given me material, and experiences to make techniques real, having been K.O.'d by him, and had more than above par training with his students as well. Basically he has given me more of the internal aspects of the Martial Arts / Sciences than anyone else, even going outside Kenpo.

Clearly their are aspects of the Martial Arts that are just missing from many instructors in the Martial Arts, that Dr. Chapél has addressed within American Kenpo; Destructive Sequencing, Anatomical Alignment, Positive Body Posture, Negative Body Posture, etc. I have friends that have studied for years in Long Fist, Aikido, Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, White Eyebrow, and many others that have been amazed at what I have shown them that Dr. Chapél, has taught me. I think they have slanted foreheads from all the Homer Simpson: "Douuuu!" with a slap on the forehead, when I tell them why they are doing something the way they are. The truth is, that I only know of it because of Sub Level 4 training.

One more story that has been passed down by Mr. Sean Kelley, is a story that Jimmy Woo used to teach at the Pasadena school, and he talked of internal aspects of the arts, and even talked of one in which you could avoid death via strangulation or hanging, and someone he told this to, died of asphyxiation attempting the technique. Mr. Parker found out about this and their relationship ended as the students were obviously not ready for this type of information. So who is to say that Mr. Parker didn't think that some were ready for some the information and passed it on to some and not others. Just as he did with the knife material, and other aspects that Mr. Parker taught different things to different people.

Enough of me being on my soap box, I just feel that some people have been unfairly ganged up on, and stories twisted and turned, without fully trying to comprehend what is being said. These people have taken some of the information and taken offense to it, as if they are doing something bad, and that is not my statement. I am saying that using logic and common sense you should be able to determine that their has been more than one system of American Kenpo, and that many people know many different things. Also having met with some of these people's instructors it becomes more clear that they attack because they have lost many students to Dr. Chapél, and the fact that many have ben Black Belts makes it hurt even worse.

These are my observations, no offense is meant, I just needed to state the things I have witnessed and felt.


----------



## eternalwhitebelt (Oct 13, 2002)

Huk's two step rule is for beginners.


----------



## amk (Oct 13, 2002)

Last time he said it, their wasn't anyone below purple in the room, and 3/4 of the room was Black Belt or higher.


----------



## eternalwhitebelt (Oct 13, 2002)

If you were working on something new then you were a beginner, it doesn't matter what your rank is.  The two step rule, as well as going slow are aids in learning new information, nothing more.  I have worked with Huk where everything we were working on was realistic, spontaneous and full out.  He teaches many different things, as do most seniors in the system.


----------



## amk (Oct 14, 2002)

The material wasn't new, I think Mr. Planas is a great instructor, don't get me wrong.  I was mearly pointing out his approach on learning to read attacks vs. others.

In actuallity my post was not supposed to be about Mr. Planas other than what I have been exposed to by him, has further validated things that others try and discredit about Dr. Chap'el.  That's it, no other motivation, or intent.


----------



## eternalwhitebelt (Oct 15, 2002)

Point taken.


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 15, 2002)

Chapel wrote an email not too long ago that said I do "Strip Mall Kenpo". Frank Trejo was really pleased with that. (Frank's been an instructor of mine for years.)

Chapel has also said that I stalk him from forum to forum. Problem is... I was posting on Martial Talk here for four months before he registered.

Oh well...

I don't care where/when he got his black belt, if he is a doctor or not, and weather there really is a "Sub-Level 4" or "Motion Kenpo". I know the truth, and you're not going to change it.

Sorry guys. :asian:


----------



## satans.barber (Oct 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *Chapel wrote an email not too long ago that said I do "Strip Mall Kenpo". Frank Trejo was really pleased with that. (Frank's been an instructor of mine for years.)
> 
> ...



I do so love to see people sticking up for themselves, go on Billy lad!

Ian.


----------



## amk (Oct 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *Chapel wrote an email not too long ago that said I do "Strip Mall Kenpo". Frank Trejo was really pleased with that. (Frank's been an instructor of mine for years.)
> 
> ...



So I guess that since you have been in American Kenpo Since 1994, that means you know so much, and so much of the truth.  The truth is that you have no idea of where most of this stuff even comes from.


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk _
> 
> *So I guess that since you have been in American Kenpo Since 1994, that means you know so much, and so much of the truth.  The truth is that you have no idea of where most of this stuff even comes from. *



Tell me now if Trejo is an unreliable source of information, and I will relay the message. :asian:


----------



## eternalwhitebelt (Oct 16, 2002)

Or Huk, or Sepulveda, or Edmund, or Pick, shall we continue the list?


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by eternalwhitebelt _
> 
> *Or Huk, or Sepulveda, or Edmund, or Pick, shall we continue the list? *



Don't bother continuing the list, it's not going to get anyone anywhere. The majority is wrong unless they have used the word motion once before in their life... then they support the exhistance of "Motion Kenpo" and "Sub-Level 4". Oh well... I'm done... I've decided to sign up for the Ultra Uber Kewel Sub-Level One that is being offered Here: Sub-Level One - The Ultimate Partial Art!


----------



## amk (Oct 16, 2002)

You guys show absolutley no respect for any of the above mentioned Seniors with the way that you represent their names.

Second of all the fact of them being a reliable source needs to be put into context.

William, you never have posted an exact quote from Mr. Trejo, so how do I or anyone else know what you post is said by him, as you and your comrads have twisted words from Dr. Chap'el in whatever manner you preffer, and jumped to conclusions based on statements that he has made.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM, GO AHEAD MAKE A LIST, AS I HAVE POSTED, THE TIME FRAMES WILL MAKE THEM RELIABLE OR UNRELIABLE, AND THE CONTEXT OF THE STATEMENTS.

WHAT EXACTLY DID MR. FRANK TREJO SAY?

I TRUST MR. TREJO, AND RESPECT HIM, BUT YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU TAKE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT TIME IN AND TIME AGAIN, SO YOUR PARAPHRASING, AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON WHAT MR. TREJO SAYS ARE WORTHLESS!!!

TAKE A COURSE ON LOGIG AT A GOOD SCHOOL PLEASE, AS YOU NEED TO LEARN SOME ARGUMENTATIVE SKILLS, AS YOUR POINT ONLY DRIVES THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A PETTY JEOLOUSY, FOR SOME UNEXPLAINABLE REASON.


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk _
> 
> *You guys show absolutley no respect for any of the above mentioned Seniors with the way that you represent their names.
> 
> ...



I go to see Frank Trejo every other day... He is my friend and one of my Kenpo Mentors... I have a different relationship with Frank than you think. I love him like a dad, and revere him as a Martial Artist.

HOW DARE YOU TELL ME THAT I DON'T RESPECT HIM!!!


----------



## amk (Oct 16, 2002)

You have not used his name in a respectful manner, and yes I just said it.

I never said that you don't respect him as a person.

Stop reading things the wrong way, read for what is written and said.

I am truely understanding why you don't understand anything.........

This wasn't even the topic, see what happens when you can't logically prevail, you jump to some other form of attack, or defense with no logic.  Are you sure you are into Kenpo?


----------



## SingingTiger (Oct 16, 2002)

Here's a concept I try to live by:

What you choose to say invariably says more about you than your words say about the subject at hand.

I try to live by it, but often fail.  Still, experience has taught me that the idea is valid.

Rich


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk _
> 
> *You have not used his name in a respectful manner, and yes I just said it.
> 
> ...



Let's try this again... Frank told me to call him "Frank" and that's what I call him (in respect to his wishes)... in this medium or any other. I'm sorry that you don't get it, but that's the way it is. If you need to clarify this call him. His number is (626) 449-3684. 

By the way his number is public information, and on his web site (That I put up for him).

Read a little bit more between the lines, and tell me there is more than blank paper there.


----------



## amk (Oct 17, 2002)

If that is what you have agreed upon, that is between you and Mr. Trejo.

Out of respect when I am talking about a person in the 3rd party it is appropriate in American Kenpo, and outside of it as well to address them by their Sir name.

The problem is your lack of communication skills, and understading of what has been said.

I simply think that the problem is that you and your instructor Mr. Idol, have mislead yourselves by reading to much into what was said in the past, and now you have gotten other people worked up about it.

As using logic, I have pointed out everything that you and your friends have said to be false, or in fact backing up what Dr. Chap'el has said.

Good luck on your Journey.


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 17, 2002)

Mr. AMK,

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Sincerely,
Billy Lear


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 18, 2002)

Um...ah...speaking of a lack of communication skills, it ain't "Sir name." It's, "surname," and it refers to one's last name, or family name. However, I do tend to address grown-ups I don't know as, "Mr." and "Ms." It's the way I was brought up.

There are a few too damn many "Sifus," and "senseis," etc. etc, in American martial arts for my taste anyway. Last time I checked, this was a democratic society. I don't see anything wrong with respecting, and representing tradition on the mat and in the studio--but it has been my experience that those who demand titles never truly earn anybody's respect.


The most famous scholar I ever knew, Edward Thompson, asked everbody to call him, "Ed." You may take my word for it that this in no way lowered anybody's respect. My understanding is that Mr. Parker usually went by, Ed," too, but I could be wrong.

More to the point, why not just argue with the Mr. Lear's ideas and facts rather than spraying insults? Why is that more in the spirit of the martial arts than calling Mr. Trejo, "Frank?"

Oh well. This is probably a pointless post.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 18, 2002)

Wait, wait, wait. I read the first page, and now I get why this whole silly bit about names has come up. Mr. amk posted, as he has on kenponet, another of those posts about "real," vs. "motion," kenpo, topped with the usual disclaimer about not putting anybody down. He got called on it, and pretty effectively, so he brought up the issues of title, and of communication, in order to avoid discussing the issues raised around so-called, "motion," or, "commercial," kenpo. Good tactic.

In addition to other posts I've made on this subject, let me note this: it is based on the notion that Mr. Parker's "real," kenpo had nothing whatsoever to do with money. Interesting fantasy, considering the history of American kenpo. It dawns on me, too, that this is just the whole Mitose vs. Chow bit come round again. 

I'll say it again: even before American kenpo appeared, there was the idea of "external," and, "internal," arts. That's what this stuff is, too, and quite worth debating. It's just that I was never taught to separate the two approaches. Sometimes ya hits 'em, and at times one employs the chi in all of its manifestations.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 18, 2002)

> According to Dr. Chapél, American Kenpo Sub Level Four is learned and practiced in a way that forces you to do things that increase the likely hood of victory. Rearrangement and other aspects of "Motion Kenpo" are removed to stack the odds in your favor, like Positive and Negative Body Posture, Destructive Sequencing, and other aspects that can't be rearranged with out removing those advantages given to us through sciences of body mechanics.



I was just wondering, as all real life confrontations are very viscous/fluid with thousands of unpredictable variables, wouldn't rearrangement be of GREAT benefit to a Kenpoist??? Seems to me that it would. I recall Mr. Parker speaking on this at a seminar that I went to, my notes reflect that he gave quite a bit of credence to rearrangement and tailoring and all the other things that you say would need to be removed to stack the odds in your favor. It also seems to me that Mr. Parker did have many interviews and wrote books in which he emphasized the NEED for tailoring and rearrangement a great deal. 

I just dont see how limiting your options and ability to fluidly adapt to a fluidly changing situation/environment is of any benefit. No amount of science can make up for a lack of options or adaptability, seems to me.

Also, You said:
Clearly their are aspects of the Martial Arts that are just missing from many instructors in the Martial Arts, that Dr. Chapél has addressed within American Kenpo; Destructive Sequencing, Anatomical Alignment, Positive Body Posture, Negative Body Posture

Are you saying that before Mr. Chapel there was no anatomical alignment in Kenpo? To be absolutely frank, the terms that he uses such as positive and negative body posture seem to be something that already existed w/in Kenpo and he just gave it a new name and said that it was lacking before. Destructive sequencing? Where else can this be found? In other arts that perform nerve work? Maybe. But to say that Kenpo lacks nerve attacks or activation? No way, Ive seen too many people dropped by touches or debilitated by a strike to a seemingly innocuous area. To have to adhere to a strict sequence of nerve activations seems a waste of time to me. If you activate the first and he reacts differently than expected (Mr. Chapel will tell you that different people react very differently to the same nerve activations)then it throws you out of alignment or puts you at the wrong distance, or worse blocks your shot at the nextsequential nerve strike. Then you are lost, unless you can modify/formulate and tailor. 

Mr. Chapel is a good person, don't get me wrong. But THIS is a big part of the disagreement that I have with his claims.

But like I said before, whether or not I agree or disagree won't change either his or my day  tomorrow.

Your Brother
John


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> 
> *I was just wondering, as all real life confrontations are very viscous/fluid with thousands of unpredictable variables, wouldn't rearrangement be of GREAT benefit to a Kenpoist??? Seems to me that it would. I recall Mr. Parker speaking on this at a seminar that I went to, my notes reflect that he gave quite a bit of credence to rearrangement and tailoring and all the other things that you say would need to be removed to stack the odds in your favor. It also seems to me that Mr. Parker did have many interviews and wrote books in which he emphasized the NEED for tailoring and rearrangement a great deal.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have said it better myself, damn, maybe there's something to this AKKI business LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 18, 2002)

Hey guys (Clyde, Robert, and John),

Very good poits from each of you. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Billy


----------



## amk2 (Oct 19, 2002)

First off, let me say that it is still me, I got a new email address, and tried to change it late last night, and typed in the wrong character, so I got locked out.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> *Wait, wait, wait. I read the first page, and now I get why this whole silly bit about names has come up. Mr. amk posted, as he has on kenponet, another of those posts about "real," vs. "motion," kenpo, topped with the usual disclaimer about not putting anybody down. He got called on it, and pretty effectively, so he brought up the issues of title, and of communication, in order to avoid discussing the issues raised around so-called, "motion," or, "commercial," kenpo. Good tactic.
> 
> ...




Now, I think that you are out of control, on the Sir Nam or surname, what ever way you wish to take it, and by the way Sir Name means that you use a Mr. Ms. Mrs, or something infront of their SURNAME, which is their last name.

I brought that up as a side note, and told Mr. Lear, that this was not the issue, and I attempted to bring the conversation back on track.  So good tactic, my a**. 

"Real", here you go Misleading people, I never said real, Kenpo.

What you did was imply or read what you wanted to, all I was pointing out was that their is a difference and what some of those are, and here you go with what you, have interpreted, and interpreted incorrectly in my opinion.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 19, 2002)

This I can respect,  and it seems as if you have put thought, and analyzed what you have read, the people that haven't, have been the ones making the situation worse.


> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> 
> *I was just wondering, as all real life confrontations are very viscous/fluid with thousands of unpredictable variables, wouldn't rearrangement be of GREAT benefit to a Kenpoist??? Seems to me that it would. I recall Mr. Parker speaking on this at a seminar that I went to, my notes reflect that he gave quite a bit of credence to rearrangement and tailoring and all the other things that you say would need to be ?removed to stack the odds in your favor?. It also seems to me that Mr. Parker did have many interviews and wrote books in which he emphasized the NEED for tailoring and rearrangement a great deal.
> 
> I just don?t see how limiting your options and ability to fluidly adapt to a fluidly changing situation/environment is of any benefit. No amount of ?science? can make up for a lack of options or adaptability, seems to me.*



Yes rearrangement and tailoring are great, they allow one to deal with What If's, and many other things.  I never said, nor implied that rearrangement was bad, just different.  That diffence takes away from some the advantages that Sub-Level-4 gives you.  You I believe are missing the premise on Sub-Level-4, as in Sub Level 4 you are always doing "Control Manipulation",  and really removing the ability for one to change the situation to grappling, or some other attack.  I will address this further in the post as well.


> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> 
> *
> Also, You said:
> ...



I am not saying that their was no anatomical alignment in Kenpo, but I haven't seen anyone with the understanding of it like him, both conceptualy and physically, and their is a major difference between putting an arm in good position for a punch and what I am reffering to.

You are referencing Dr. Chap'el and how he will tell you that different people will react differently to nerve strikes.  That statement is in a given set of peramiters, as some people don't react from the pain, but in Sub Level 4, you are not dealing with pain compliance to make your techniques work.  You are dealing with neurological reactions, and anatomical body movements that would fall into Kinesiology (being the study of muscles and movement, not the other variations that use the name).  Yes their are nerve strikes in some other American Kenpo Schools, but unless they have persued the knowledge, the full capabilities of those nerve strikes are not being met.

As far as me being thrown out of alignment, from missing a strike to a nerve, that won't happen, and the only way that you will understand that is to train with Dr. Chap'el or some of his students, as a don't expect you to just take my word for it.  But I will try to explain one small aspect of it. here.




> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> ?then it throws you out of alignment or puts you at the wrong distance, or worse blocks your shot at the next?sequential nerve strike. Then you are lost, unless you can modify/formulate and tailor.
> [/B]



1st off the nerve strikes are an advantage, not a necessity.  The blocks in Sub Level 4, really fit into Black Dot Focus, as I have not seen any other American Kenpo people apply this principal in the blocks.  I would say that most (note that I didn't say all) will adjust the height of their block to the weapon, and focus on blocking that target, which would be White Dot Focus.  Dr. Chap'el teaches people to block the zone, and you use a different block to block a different zone, these blocks are done in a specific anatomical way, that makes them very strong, and takes away from the ability to manipulate your extended arm and turn the situation into a grappling scenario.  Hey the Gracies teach people to through a fake punch so a trained fighter will block, then they will grab their arm and take them down.  This is something that you have to experience, as words will never do it justice.  Since the blocks are done in a specific manner with a set zone of protection, my next move regardless will increase my anatomical structure even further.  I came from another American Kenpo school as a Black Belt, before I met Dr. Chap'el.  I am not saying that this is the best for everyone, or even you.  It is just different, and has some advanced concepts that are going on to make it more intellectually stimulating for me, and many others, possibly you too, but that would depend on your journey or path.

I would be happy to discuss this further with you any time Brother John,

AMK


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2002)

Mr. amk:

Thanks for the explanation, the discussion. It's what can happen, what should happen, when one isn't so busy slanging others.

However, you made Mr. Lear's communication skills an issue, in lieu of discussing his ideas. Live by the sword...get hoist on one's own petard; teaching communication skills is one of the main things I do, so there you are. I think it reasonable to have one's own communication skills thrown into question, in the wake of having questioned another's.

As for the claim to be passing no judgments, this is absurd. You rely upon a hierarchy that cannot even exist without value judgements, even to argue about motion kenpo and "SL-4." I can pretty much guarantee, too, that you are being disingenuous when you claim that you make no such judgments: you see SL-4 as superior, right? I'm quite sure you're utterly wrong, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing one's ideas and one's choices better--unless, of course, you a) deny that you've made choices, and b) you refuse to keep an open mind.

Again, thanks for the discussion. I'd be very pleased to see of the same, sans the supercilious assertion that SL-4 is the berries and everything else (I study at Larry Tatum's, incidentally) ain't worth the time of day if you're interested in real kenpo.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 19, 2002)

My apologies if I don't have your name correct.
I thought that I made it clear in other posts on here that, it was for better for me, as I am not passing judgement on it for everyone.  I know many people in Amercian Kenpo, and frankly at least 3/4 of them wouldn't be interested in the material that Dr. Chap'el offers, and a lot of them, simply because they wouldn't be able to understand what is going on.  The rest, just because they don't want to for what ever reason.  Now I didn not imply that anyone on here or in American Kenpo is stupid, so don't imply that.  Some people just don't have the patience, or willingness to explore what is going on, and a few probably do lack the intellegance, as I am sure we all know that not all people in American Kenpo understand the concepts and principals involved; correct.

(The fact that I have to explain my self that much to avoid offending someone reading something into the statement is a problem).

I hope that statement helps you understand in more than one way, that I personally feel, it is the journey that you wish to take that matters, without bashing someone elses, as I never have.  Yet some on here have attacked Dr. Chap'el for his, based on what they read into his posts or articles, and the little part about Sir Names was about a lack of respect for people in general, and that was implied by me to test the cognative abilities of the people that were posting the attacks.  But yet you should give me credit for keeping the content on track, as it was Mr. Lear that took and ran with the tangent that I offered up.

As far as your last comments saying that I'm utterly wrong if I believe that Sub Level 4 is Superior to other forms of American Kenpo, I don't think so, it is Superior for me, I've been to other schools, in fact I trained at 3 other facilities (2 of which are considered to be world famous in the Kenpo World that is), and ran a school for one instructor for 2 years, all before I began to train with Dr. Chap'el.  So I believe that I am able to make the decision on what's best for me.  Have you ever gone out to Dr. Chap'els school?  That is really the only way to make the informed decision, and go with an open mind, as your previous statement would mean that your mind is closed.  I think that Mr. Tatum has a lot to offer, in fact he even gave me some advice after competing in forms at the IKC, back in the day.  So if that is what you enjoy, great,  I have no problem with that, and don't think anything is wrong with that either.  I know that I have at least expericenced American Kenpo, on many different levels to know what is best for me, and others have passed judgement before exploring their options, and what things are.
Good luck with what ever you do.


----------



## SingingTiger (Oct 19, 2002)

> (The fact that I have to explain my self that much to avoid offending someone reading something into the statement is a problem).



I'd have to agree that it's a problem, but I doubt that we'd agree on what kind of problem it is.  To me, it's a problem with your ability to either a) communicate your ideas effectively, or b) say something and then maintain credibility when you deny that you have said it.  Here's why I feel this way:



> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> ...I know many people in Amercian Kenpo, and frankly at least 3/4 of them wouldn't be interested in the material that Dr. Chap'el offers, and a lot of them, simply because they wouldn't be able to understand what is going on



In that statement, you call into question the intelligence of "a lot" of 3/4 of the American Kenpoists you know.  Presumably, "a lot" refers to more than 50%, though you may wish to debate that interpretation (and if you do, you'll make the argument for not being able to communicate your ideas effectively).

Two sentences later, you write:



> Now I didn not imply that anyone on here or in American Kenpo is stupid



But, unfortunately, you did.  You have just called into question the intelligence of at least 3/8 of the American Kenpoists you know (after stating that you know many people in American Kenpo), and this can reasonably be interpreted as calling them stupid.

Frankly, AMK, I don't have an opinion on the points you are trying to make.  If Dr. Chapel teaches an effective martial art, more power to him; having not studied with him I can't say whether it's better or worse than what I'm learning (and even if I study with him I might not think it better or worse, just different).  But you should be aware that the way in which you choose to try to make your points immediately puts people on the defensive, because you are attacking people and in the same breath (or keystroke) claiming that you are not attacking anyone.

Rich


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *  Some people just don't have the patience, or willingness to explore what is going on, and a few probably do lack the intellegance, as I am sure we all know that not all people in American Kenpo understand the concepts and principals involved; correct.
> 
> ...



The use of a dictionary or thesaurus  is usually appropriate when attacking the INTELLIGENCE of others.    Grammar helps as well.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 P.S.  I do expect Robert to grade my posts without predjudice


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2002)

It's not an issue of "grading," Clyde's posts, because Clyde doesn't raise issues of other people's ability to communicate or their intelligence. He simply does what any good debater does: tells you he disagrees, tells you why, and presents evidence in support of his case. I might add that he also doesn't refer you to books of logic, as though there were some magic secret in them about proper communication. Instead, he notes that he is available to try the case on the mat or in the street. Oh yeah--he also doesn't claim credentials, or experience that he doesn't have. In his own weird, crude way, he's being exactly what an intellectual should be.

As for taking a trip to Mr. Chap'el's (and I'm sorry. I worked damn hard for my doctorate, and I'm not gonna honor a claim of one unsupported by documentation), I suppose you're right. But I haven't the time--and why leave the well to go look for water? If you're wondering why I'm taking this tone, it's got something to do with being patronized ("good luck with..." my foot).

I'm afraid that I've been around every single, solitary thing in SL4 over the last ten or so years. Just for openers, every single thing in it in is inherent in the open system of so-called motion kenpo. As is everything else in martial
arts. It is for us to find what's already there, staring us right in the snoot.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by SingingTiger _
> 
> *I'd have to agree that it's a problem, but I doubt that we'd agree on what kind of problem it is.  To me, it's a problem with your ability to either a) communicate your ideas effectively, or b) say something and then maintain credibility when you deny that you have said it.  Here's why I feel this way:
> 
> ...



Actually a lot, as in a statistical number usually just means more than expected, but less than half, as if it were 50% or more then it would be defined as a majority.  It is a subjective term.  I challenge you to find a definition of it as 50% or more  So you'll make the debate for me not being able to communicate my ideas effectively, uhm.....

I think that it has to do with others lack of communication skills, have you ever heard the pharase: "You have two ears and one mouth."  It is something that they always say to sales people.  The most important part in communication is listening.  The other problem is that you short changed my paragraph, and a paragraph is a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, and deals with one point.  So if someone quotes me the way that you just did, it doesn't contain the whole point, that makes it the readers lack of communication skills, as not following through with the point.  So when some people read something into a statement, and don't fully understand something it is easier to try and discredit the statement, by some such method that you have just illustrated.  (Not that you did that to me, as I took it as you are trying to teach me something, which I can respect.)

If you choose to engage in a communication with someone it is your job to try and fully understand the other persons point of view, this is done by asking questions, not jumping to conclusions.  So after this if we disagree on who the blame goes on for the lack of communication skills, I think that we will have to agree to disagree.

Good luck,

AMK


----------



## amk2 (Oct 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Well, just so you know Dr. Chap'el does have documentation on his Doctorate, and I have seen it.  I'm glad you worked hard on yours big deal.

I challenge you to go to a good Aikido, or Jujitsu school, ask them if you can do an experiment their.

Perform an Inward Block, a Vertical Outward Block, and an Outward Extended Block.  Tell them to try and manipulate your arm while you are executing the blocks, and after you get them in position both.  Are you still standing up?  I don't think so, I have seen others from your school (including one of your higher ranking fellow students, I would quote his name, but it has been some time, and I only recall his first name) block, and second to stances that is the next most important aspect of Sub Level 4, so I don't think it has been staring you right in the snoot.  

By the way before I really did mean that I was wishing you luck.

Now I just think that you like to put others down and cause problems, because you have some issues with your confidence.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *I challenge you to go to a good Aikido, or Jujitsu school, ask them if you can do an experiment their.
> 
> ...



What in the hell are you talking about?   What experiment with manipulation?  Youl'll have to explain this more.

    If the stances are one of the most important aspects of Sub Level 4, what is Mr. Chapel doing in the BB article?   They resembled a neutral and forward bow but that was as close as they got.     Is there something I'm missing when evaluating his stances compared to what I do.

 If you know the guy's name (you know, the  higher ranking student), feel free to mention the name, we might know him.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## brianhunter (Oct 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *The use of a dictionary or thesaurus  is usually appropriate when attacking the INTELLIGENCE of others.    Grammar helps as well.
> 
> ...



Man you know your bad off if Clyde is correcting your grammar!! Just kidiing..you know I love you man, your like the mean hairy older brother I never had!! HAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## WayOfTheKeyboard (Oct 20, 2002)

Mr. AMK,

I think your suggestion that people judge for themselves is reasonable. 
Can you provide directions to the Martial Science University? 
When is the next seminar? 

Thanks,

Way


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk _
> 
> *
> One more story that has been passed down by Mr. Sean Kelley, is a story that Jimmy Woo used to teach at the Pasadena school, and he talked of internal aspects of the arts, and even talked of one in which you could avoid death via strangulation or hanging, and someone he told this to, died of asphyxiation attempting the technique. Mr. Parker found out about this and their relationship ended as the students were obviously not ready for this type of information. So who is to say that Mr. Parker didn't think that some were ready for some the information and passed it on to some and not others. Just as he did with the knife material, and other aspects that Mr. Parker taught different things to different people.
> *



So Mr. Parker didn't think that his student's were ready for the information that resulted in this student's death, eh?

*Originally written in: Ed Parker's Infinite Insight's into KENPO, Volume One, Mental Stimulation.*(Chapter One, Page 3, Paragraph 4.)

_"It must be emphasized that a human body can only do so much and nothing more. Stories passed down over the centuries have credited Martial Artsists with the ability to perform incredible feats. One should always analyze such stories. Use logic when studying the Martial Arts and refrain from believing hearsay. Several deaths have resulted from believing stories that hold no truth. A former student went to another instructor who bambarded him with mystical trash. He believed what he was told and attempted an experiment which caused his death. This should never have happened. If there is one thing that training in the Martial Arts should teach, it is a clear understanding of one's limitations at various levels of progress."_

According to what Mr. Parker wrote he believed the information that caused that student's death was mystical trash. At what point did Mr. Parker believe a practitioner was ready to learn mystical trash? I'm curious.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 20, 2002)

Im curious too.......

:rofl:


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk _
> 
> *WHAT EXACTLY DID MR. FRANK TREJO SAY?
> 
> ...



I think Mr. Trejo was pretty clear about his opinion when he posted this:



> Many have tried and many have died. You mess with the best you die like the rest.
> I don't wanna disrespect anyone, but I've been teaching Ed Parker's Kenpo almost my entire life and if what I am teaching is "Motion Kenpo" then I challenge anyone and everyone to put your *** on the line and stand infront of me with what you think "Real" Kenpo is. Hence, I will put "YOUR" kenpo *** in Kenpo motion. Name the time and place. My E-mail is Kumupalani@aol.com I'll be there!!!
> 
> FRANK TREJO
> ...



http://www.martialtalk.com/showthre...15&highlight=squatting sacrifice&pagenumber=5


----------



## cdhall (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *I think Mr. Trejo was pretty clear about his opinion when he posted this:
> 
> ...



I didn't know Mr. Trejo was here!  Cool.  The next 3 day weekend I get, I'll go read that thread nightingale8472.   I tried tonight but it is very long and complex to say the least. 

Otherwise, I think that the crux of the issue is that Mr. Trejo has been teaching his system, with Mr. Parker's blessing, in public for his entire adult life and a few thousand people have seen him use it and do stuff like win the Internationals in both Forms and Fighting and there is no question about what is he doing, whether it works or not, where it came from and what it looks like. :karate:

I think Mr. Trejo is reiterating this point and taking offense at anyone who claims otherwise.  He has good reason to do so, his life's work and the majority of Mr. Parker's life's work have been called into question.

I understand that Mr. Parker, Mr. LaBounty, Mr. Kelly and others used to go around "correcting" people who challenged them so as to "prove" that their stuff worked like they said.  I am glad to see that Mr. Trejo is ready to remind anyone who seriously doubt this that Mr. Parker's system does indeed work.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2002)

Ah, classic responses. I behave obnoxiously, you object, therefore you have problems.

My doctorate was finished in 1987 at Brown University, in English. Title of dissertation, "The Order of Failure: Fiction in Modernism and Post-Modernism." Director, Robert Scholes. I'm proud of the work, though I don't think the writing amounted to much, really. 

Oh, and my reference to Ed Thompson? That's Edward Palmer Thompson, author of, "Making of the English Working Class." Get on the website at Brown, 1980-1981: if they'll let you into the course rosters, there I am, one of his students. Can you provide similar documentation for your claims? 

I invite you, I invite anybody, to check. What'd your guy write his dissertation on? Who directed it? With what accredited program--one granting the PhD--was he associated? 

As for the other gibberish, well, talk fast and maybe nobody will notice you've stopped making sense. (See David Byrne) You may very well be a wonderful kenpoist. Assuming that what you're saying is true, you've more experience.  than me, that's for sure. So why not just stick to that? You are the truth, the light and the way. Why be slavish?

I believe in the idea of disseminating knowledge: no secrets. I believe in the principle ( and oh yeah: it is "principle," not, "principal," that you should've used when you were attacking Mr. Lear's communication skills) of open knowledge, openly arrived at. The whole aim of your argument--including your avoidance of using your name--is that there are secrets. There ain't. And if you think that all these Big Secrets aren't "there," lying out in the open to be picked up, from Day 1 of studying kenpo...well. Hm. That is not good.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *I think Mr. Trejo was pretty clear about his opinion when he posted this:
> 
> ...



And how does that relate, you are posting this as it has no relative context to what I have said.  I never said that Mr. Trejo does Motion Kenpo, or teaches it, or anything to that effect.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> *Ah, classic responses. I behave obnoxiously, you object, therefore you have problems.
> 
> ...



Like I said, big deal, I don't care about your Doctorate.

and the point about your behavior is that this is the last time that I am going to interact with you.

I leave my name out of it, because my name should not be used as influence, nor should I subject myself to, what you would probably turn into a stalking scenario, as now I must make infurrences into your statements that you are mentally unstable!

It doesn't matter what you post from now on, as I won't even read it, and you can trash talk me all you want, but you really don't know who I am, but the others on the forum seem to think by the private messages I have gotten that I have spoken out of respect, or at least until this point with you, as I don't have any respect for you.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *Like I said, big deal, I don't care about your Doctorate.
> 
> ...



Dude, you should really consider some remedial English classes for one.       

Why is it you leave your name out of it, I'm very curious?    People like Wes Idol, Billy Lear, Frank Trejo, Mike Pick, Robert Robertson, and myself all have nothing to hide or fear.    If you're that sure of yourself, why would you not expose yourself the the scrutiny of live interaction instead of keyboard warrioring for your cause?    Does seem a bit silly to keep pounding on the keyboard if you're never willing to back it up with a real name, or just the lack of intestinal fortitude to use it, and you can  consider that  a personal attack on your character if you choose to do so.     I'm no philosopher or DOCTOR,  but I can usually judge someones character by their writing and interaction skills via text and vocally.   You've attacked our INTELLIGENCE, our methodology, and our art with your comments and I'm kinda tired of seeing the rhetoric, as I'm sure most are.     Please go away.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## amk2 (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *So Mr. Parker didn't think that his student's were ready for the information that resulted in this student's death, eh?
> 
> ...



Mystical Trash uhm......

Mr. Parker talked about Qi a fair amount at one point in his life, here is a quote from Mr. Parker: " Believe me I have seen Qi (or Chi) work, I don't care what you or anyone else say, I have seen it work.  I have seen my father go blind because of it, and also healed because of it. "  He also went on in the statement to talk about how his father died in related material.  I know that you can even buy video tapes of seminars with him talking about this.

Also you are quoting from book 1, in which it is assumed and generally instructed at many American Kenpo schools to read the books in order, in a timed succession with your progress in the arts, or sciences.  Just as I had said that they were not ready for the information.  I invite you to look at Infinite Insights into Kenpo Vol. 4, Mental and Physical Constituents which was written further along in Mr. Parkers life than book 1.  Read all of Chapter 2, but more specifically start on the bottom of page 4.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> 
> *Dude, you should really consider some remedial English classes for one.
> 
> ...



I was going to try and give you more information to conduct the experiement, but if you wish that I be done Mr. O'Brient, then fine.  I don't need to post, I thought you had an open mind by your previous post. Now you attack me for a problem that I had with someone else. I never attacked your intelligence.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *I know many people in Amercian Kenpo, and frankly at least 3/4 of them wouldn't be interested in the material that Dr. Chap'el offers, and a lot of them, simply because they wouldn't be able to understand what is going on.  The rest, just because they don't want to for what ever reason.  Now I didn not imply that anyone on here or in American Kenpo is stupid, so don't imply that.  Some people just don't have the patience, or willingness to explore what is going on, and a few probably do lack the intellegance, as I am sure we all know that not all people in American Kenpo understand the concepts and principals involved; correct.
> 
> ( *



This above quote kinda sums it up for me.   I'm not sure if you've ever met me, and if you had, I'm sure I'd remember it if you had made any sort of impression on me with your skills, or lack thereof.     

Why won't you do a little name dropping and tell us 1)who you are 2) who you originally started in Kenpo with,3) who you ran the school for 4)who you have trained with all these years.    It would certainly clear up a few misconceptions we may be having as to your abilities and intellect.     If you tell me Steve Spry or Al Farnsworth,  you can take your ball and go home now, however, if it's someone much more reputeable than said, please inform us.    You seem to pride yourself on your knowledge but refuse to enlighten as to how you aquired it, other than Mr. Chapel (notice the Mr. in lack of empirical evidence of Doctorate Degree from an accredited university, not San Marin).     That sort of information would either fan the flame or extinguish it, your choice.

If you're going to post on the experiment, I would still like to hear about it and try it, I'm always game for something like that.   


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

P.S.  the last name is spelled O'Briant, no E.   It's on my post with the correct spelling.   Should you give us your name I would attmept to spell it correctly if it was clearly visible next to the post.


----------



## amk2 (Oct 20, 2002)

Sorry for misspelling your name.

I am done posting, you can private message me if you wish.


----------



## WayOfTheKeyboard (Oct 20, 2002)

Mr. AMK,

Did you miss my previous question?

Or, is this a case of "squeaky wheels getting the grease?" Do you only answer posts you find offensive?

To repeat my question:

I think your suggestion that people judge for themselves is reasonable. 

Can you provide directions to the Martial Science University? 

When is the next seminar? 

Thanks (again),

Way


----------



## WilliamTLear (Oct 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *Mystical Trash uhm......
> 
> ...



I asked you a specific question and you're pointing me to a chapter in Infintie Insights book 4 about supermemory and superlearning? While interesting, those topics don't constitute an answer to my question. Let me ask you again...

At what point did Mr. Parker believe a practitioner was ready to learn mystical trash? :shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2002)

One way to respond to all this, I think, is to ask if we can construct a set of rules by which to judge when we're having---ah...how shall I put this...hot air blown at us by a martial artist. After all, there does seem to be a fair amount of fakery in the arts. Perhaps there's even something in us that brings it out--or actually, I suspect, something about the nature and the history of kenpo that encourages bull.

Here're some things I've learned to watch for.

1) Anonymity. Or more exactly, anonymity linked to various kinds of attacks on others. This is exactly the equivalent of leaving your name off your book, or off your research: in the sciences, for example, names are vital tools that a) allow readers to check up on claims about education and results, and b) keep the scientist (who knows that they are accountable) honest.

2) Various forms of evasion whenever direct questions are asked.  A good academic at least pretends to welcome questions, since they a) help further your inquiries, b) help get across the point that you know what you're talking about and need not fear beeing quizzed a little.

3) Ad hominem attacks on the moral character, intelligence, education, of anybody who disagrees with you. Especially bad when accompanied by constant claims, generally unsubstantiated, that everybody else is attacking your moral character unfairly when they object to being slanged.

4) Long, tangled, pseudo-scientific and pseudo-logical sentence structures. It is difficult enough to write clearly, and to interpret fairly. Writing in ways that make the inherent ambiguity of language worse is a bad sign, and probably worst of all when it is coupled with incessant attacks on somebody else's writing.

5) Repeated citation of dictionaries/textbooks when the meaning's really fairly clear already, apparently in an effort to give one's statements a veneer of authority. It's reminiscent of hucksters selling crop circle photos and perpetual motion machines--always the fake science.

6) An insistence upon secrets at various levels, most obviously the assertion (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) that one was taught  something about martial arts that no one else, ever, could figure out on their own.

I think--well, OK, I'd argue--that everybody can pretty much agree that this sorts of stuff and guff ain't good. Why's there so much of it in American kenpo? I have to say, too, that the sad thing is, it's so completely unnecesssary. I certainly suspect that many of the folks I've quarrelled with, or quarrelled about, have a great deal to be proud of: why isn't the truth enough? Why isn't it enough to be a good martial artist, without one form or another of chest-thumping? 

By the way, I mean these as serious questions. So fortunately, I'll now shut up on the subject. I hope.


----------



## Michael_Browne (Oct 20, 2002)

Wow, this thread is amazing.  I just read most of the posts and my head is spinning.  Exactly what was the topic to begin with again?  I would definitely agree with Clyde and the gang that begin forth coming with ones name when posting is appropriate, not to mention courteous.  It always seems that we get off topic rather quickly.  Not only here, but on most of the forums and bulletin boards.  I really have difficulty figuring that out.  So many people get so offended by every thing.  

To poorly quote Mr. Parker "feeling is believing".  I've only been at Kenpo & Martial Arts for a short 12 years.  I've seen some cool stuff & I've seen some cheesy stuff.  However, Mr. Parker's statement really holds true with me.  I don't automatically disregard anything, but if you are going to make statements you had better be able to beck up your position either with a physical demonstration, or documentation.  This holds true in every aspect of life, not just Kenpo.

If you told a prospective employer that you had a Masters Degree from NYU, you would be expected to be to prove that information is correct.  Even if it is as simple as your prospective employer making a phone call.  If the information isn't verifiable, would you really expect to get the job?  Further more, could you blame them for not hiring you?

I'm not a guru, or master, or even a PhD, but if I'm going to put anything up I need to know that what I'm getting in return is the real deal.  I'm not big on going on faith.  

All the backlash on the boards really gets old.  Rather than brooding about who's trying to insult who, back up your post.  Provide some evidence that proves your point.  Unfortunately, "you had to be there" doesn't usually cut it.  If you provide actual proof that what you are saying is true, if someone chooses to disagree or disbelieve, its their tough luck.  Beyond that let it go.

Sometimes it feels like the crusades.  There are more different stlyes of martial arts in the world than there are religions.  


My 2 cents for whatever its worth.

Michael Browne


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 21, 2002)

Gone for the weekend and look what happens!!  It took me forever to catch up on the Kenpo threads.

Back to the eternal SL-4 vs "Motion" Kenpo arguement.

Clyde and Robert, your sentiments and obervations, along with Wes Idol's (other threads & forums) are apparent.   Unfortuanatly what gets confusing is that the bias you appear to have, is not against SL-4 exactly, but rather the manner in which the presentors alienate others in their arguements.  The bias is against the judgmental and condescending manner that arguements are presented.  It does not do justice the the proponents of SL-4 or ourselves.  I would be angry with anyone who came across as negatively and judgmentally as was done here.  I see it on other Kenpo forums all the time .... and it is not about SL-4.  The old "Mine is better that yours is."

amk2, I have read and seen demonstrated some of the SL-4 material and liked it, primarily because it worked.  It is not the paridigm I choose to work in, but interesting and effective none-the-less.  So why the anonymity, why the negativity towards none SL-4 practitioners?  I know you say more power to them, but this is definitly in a condesending way.  If you have something that works, why hide it? I may not buy all the concepts or precepts inherent in SL-4, but why alienate and be demeaning in your presentation?

Are you going on the addage that there is no such thing as 'Bad Publicity' (note: obviously I think there is)?  Or are you challenging people to step outside the box and look at something new?  If the latter is the case, you are not succeeding.  Are you hoping that some Kenpoist will "Identify with the aggressor" and pursue a relationship with Ron Chapel?  If so, the arguments do nothing but put me off.  I hope to see some basic shift or change in the tone of the posts, here or on KenpoNet.  But that does not happen.  Episodic battles between basically the same players.  There is no agreement to disagree.

I would love to attend a SL-4 seminar to see what is "different".  I also continue to work on my art and focus on contact manipulations, controls, and nerve damage, but within the context of the Kenpo I learned from Mr. Parker, Sigung Steven LaBounty, Sibok Tom Kelly, Brian Duffy, Tommy Burks, Howard Silva, Bryan Hawkins, Bob Liles, John Sepulveda etc.  I would really, really not want Frank Trejo mad at me.  The man is intense in his Kenpo and devestating in his application. 

Anyhow, I ramble too long.  

Peace (really!!!!!),
-Michael
UKS-Texas


----------



## Brother John (Oct 21, 2002)

Thanks for being respectful in return.

You said:
You I believe are missing the premise on Sub-Level-4, as in Sub Level 4 you are always doing "Control Manipulation", and really removing the ability for one to change the situation to grappling, or some other attack. I will address this further in the post as well.

Are you saying that the use of control manipulation removes the attackers ability to alter/change or otherwise deviate from the initial attack? I do not believe that this is possible. I dont believe that any amount of proper angle and alignment gives us the ability to TRULY control the attacker with 100% accuracy. Not even 70%. That kind of control is an illusion. That, I believe, is why SGM Parker emphasized time and again the skill of adaptation through tailoring, rearrangement, formulation, graftingetc. I know you arent saying that these are bad, but I think you are stating that these are being removed (in SL4) in favor of other things that provide for more control (control manipulation). I dont think that more control is possible, but adaptation is paramount. There are thousands of variables in any given combat situation, to get stuck in ONE mode of thought or action is to severely limit the number of options severely. 

You said:
You are referencing Dr. Chap'el and how he will tell you that different people will react differently to nerve strikes. That statement is in a given set of peramiters, as some people don't react from the pain, but in Sub Level 4, you are not dealing with pain compliance to make your techniques work. You are dealing with neurological reactions, and anatomical body movements that would fall into Kinesiology (being the study of muscles and movement, not the other variations that use the name). Yes their are nerve strikes in some other American Kenpo Schools, but unless they have persued the knowledge, the full capabilities of those nerve strikes are not being met.

The different reaction from different nerves in different people (wordy? Yes.) isnt dependant upon pain. Neurological reactions vary from person to person, especially in regards to intensity. Sometimes a neurological reaction doesnt occur at a particular site at all for a particular person. This would make it a requirement to do something else, yet the techniques in SL4 are set to be done a certain way without deviation. 

Also, I gave that statement with no parameters. Its just true. Nerve activations are reacted to differently by different people for a number of reasons, pain is only one of many.

You said: 
As far as me being thrown out of alignment, from missing a strike to a nerve, that won't happen, and the only way that you will understand that is to train with Dr. Chap'el or some of his students, as a don't expect you to just take my word for it. But I will try to explain one small aspect of it. here. 

Im sorry to be so very contradictory but that is impossibility. Even SGM Parker couldnt have said that he wouldnt miss a shot. Thats why he talked about changing angle in mid-motion or re-orbiting to a new target to change a miss into a strike. I know that no one can claim to never miss a shot, or that missing a shot wont happen, I dont care who they are. There are way too many variables to any situation. What if the person is wearing a leather jacket over the area that your technique dictates must be struck next? As the techniques cannot deviate, youd be stuck poking leather. Let alone the fact that a certain nerve that you may predict would bend someone down and to the left, might bend them down and to the right shutting down other/next nerve locations. What then?

You said:
1st off the nerve strikes are an advantage, not a necessity. The blocks in Sub Level 4, really fit into Black Dot Focus, as I have not seen any other American Kenpo people apply this principal in the blocks. I would say that most (note that I didn't say all) will adjust the height of their block to the weapon, and focus on blocking that target, which would be White Dot Focus. Dr. Chap'el teaches people to block the zone, and you use a different block to block a different zone, these blocks are done in a specific anatomical way, that makes them very strong, and takes away from the ability to manipulate your extended arm and turn the situation into a grappling scenario.

But if the techniques are to be performed verbatim, and the nerve activations are a set part of the techniques, then they are a necessity. 

I do not understand your reference to the black dot concept as applied to SL4 blocking. Not because I dont understand the theory, but because blocking zones is principally the way I was taught to block. I do understand what you are saying, but fail to see how it is specific to SL4 as its a way that I was taught early on in non-SL4 material. 

There is NO way to extend the arm and prevent a person from grappling it, no matter the angle or position. If it is there, it can be grabbed. There is no way to prevent a grappling situation. The interchange between grappling and pugilism is fluid and can happen in the blink of an eye especially in a trained fighter. Its another variable to adapt to.

I hope you dont see my disagreement as being rude, because I dont want to be. I just want to present the other side of this coin the view from the side the Mr. Chapel would probably call motion based, which I pose is nothing more than Kenpo based as I disagree with the supposed difference between motion and non-motion or advanced Kenpo and feel that the differences are supposed and not real. 
Thanks for hearing me out.

Your Brother
John


----------



## jeffkyle (Oct 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> 
> *Thanks for being respectful in return.
> 
> ...




A very well stated response, John!  I couldn't have stated it any better myself.


----------



## GouRonin (Oct 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *I'm no philosopher*



Actually, and people can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I am the only person on this board with the academic credentials of a university honours degree to qualify as a _"Philosopher."_

Well...y'all were talking with the big words so I thought I'd jump in.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2002)

Michael:

Thank you for your words, which I thought extremely rational and fair.

I do want to take minor issue with one thing: the idea of, "bias," though not because I think you're simply wrong. It's that I suppose in a general sense, it's quite true: science, and skepticism, are "biases." They're loaded towards a materialist understanding (claims must have tangible support that can be independently verified by anyone), a rationalist viewpoint (it's important to doubt claims, and one's own views: see Michael Schirmer, "extraordinary claims require extraordinaary proofs"), a humanist ideology (in principle, the universe and the people in it are knowable). So to that extent, and as I tell my English students, science amounts to a particular sort of game--a bias, if you like. Still, though, I'm not sure that this is a bias in any of the usual senses of the word, since it is--and very differently from biases, blind religious beliefs, unthinking faith, etc,--capable of being disproved. 

Despite my occasional stupidity, all I'm really asking for is discussion without personal attacks on anybody, without bluster, without constant invocations of authorities that can't be checked, without fake science. 

But again, I basically agree with you. And I'd even agree that theoretically speaking, scientific and academic discussions are themselves biased towards particular rules. But that's the sort of relativism that guys like me get accused of all the time...

Thanks again.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2002)

On the topic that Jeff Kyle raised, it seems to me that it's inherent in the structure of kenpo at every level--from the idea that beginners are taught the ideal first, to the nature of the checking system, to the idea of zones of sanctuary and angles of deviation that constantly undergo change, to the reason for extensions, to the idea of sequential opportunity ("to the mountains! to the prairies, to the oceans...")--that nothing in kenpo lasts forever or promises invulnerability.

I can certainly say that Clyde's forever whacking me, or some other semi-helpless victim, and pointing out that even the very best move can at least in principle be beat...

Thanks.


----------



## brianhunter (Oct 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> *On the topic that Jeff Kyle raised, it seems to me that it's inherent in the structure of kenpo at every level--from the idea that beginners are taught the ideal first, to the nature of the checking system, to the idea of zones of sanctuary and angles of deviation that constantly undergo change, to the reason for extensions, to the idea of sequential opportunity ("to the mountains! to the prairies, to the oceans...")--that nothing in kenpo lasts forever or promises invulnerability.
> 
> ...



So basically your saying there is no super secret death touch that only Ed Parker taught you that can be used only on the pinky toe of my attacker in sequence starting with the big toe and activating them in order only while quoting the super secret ancient chinese tome of "this little piggie"?? Damn years of training down the drain...thanks alot for suckering me back into kenpo Clyde!!! Guess Ill start working on my itsy bitsy spider rib striking sequence!! it only works if I hit the 5th or 6th intercoastal space of my 6 year old!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2002)

Yep.

And did you know that we could all just be riding these little atoms in the toenail of some gigantic being?

Wow.


----------



## Michael_Browne (Oct 21, 2002)

Robert, 

Thanks for your input.  I guess my issue is the same.  My only problem lies in that we shoud be able to have qualified discussion without name calling or harassment.  It seems to always get personal.  I'm all for a good debate, as long as we can eliminate the slander (or is it libel?).  Of course, I don't really have any good ideas on how to achieve this.  My mom always told me not to complain unless I had a better alternative.  Someday we'll all get on the same page.  At least in terms of showing others respect and courtesy.  

Best Regards

Michael Browne


----------



## Seig (Oct 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Michael_Browne _
> 
> * Someday we'll all get on the same page.  At least in terms of showing others respect and courtesy.
> 
> ...


What!?! You mean actually live by the martial code we all preach to our students?!? Have you gone daft?!? Next you'll be insisting on integrity! How absurd!:shrug: 
Every one, please, note the extreme sarcasm....


----------



## Sigung86 (Oct 22, 2002)

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!

Seig!  You win the Big Kenpopalooza NO PRIZE for the best comment on this whole thread!   Notice the complete lack of sarcasm on my part! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks for making my morning!

Dan Farmer


> _Originally posted by Seig _
> 
> *What!?! You mean actually live by the martial code we all preach to our students?!? Have you gone daft?!? Next you'll be insisting on integrity! How absurd!:shrug:
> Every one, please, note the extreme sarcasm.... *


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 22, 2002)

You guys are killing me.........
:asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 22, 2002)

Does anyone know where Doc got his PhD from?  I've asked him on kenponet, because the subject matter "anatomical physics" interests me, but he hasn't replied.


----------



## Sigung86 (Oct 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *Does anyone know where Doc got his PhD from?  I've asked him on kenponet, because the subject matter "anatomical physics" interests me, but he hasn't replied. *



The Good Doctor continues to take heat over his PHd, among other things.  He will, in all likelihood not discuss it with you, or virtually, anyone else.  I suspect that this response will even draw fire... But For what it is worth... It is his perogative to answer or not.  And no offense intended to you.

Dan


----------



## Michael_Browne (Oct 22, 2002)

Seig,

LOL.  Can't blame a guy for wishful thinking.

Michael Browne


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 22, 2002)

kind of odd...he's said that he's open to any legitimate question about his subject matter or credentials.  maybe he just didn't see my post.


----------



## WayOfTheKeyboard (Oct 22, 2002)

Nightingale,

I know how you feel. I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question I posted (twice) about the location of the MSU or the time and location of the next Sublevel four seminar.

Sheesh! They say, "come and see, judge for yourself," and then seem to hide.

I feel like it's some kind of bad Kung Fu movie test or something, "If you can't find the secret mountaintop temple, you are not worthy."

Arrgh! 

Way


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 22, 2002)

I can tell you that msu is in los angeles.  dunno about the seminar stuff


----------



## amk2 (Oct 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WayOfTheKeyboard _
> 
> *Nightingale,
> 
> ...


The message was sent to you in your private messages, please check your messageson this forum.  I am only posting this, as I see that you posted without checking your message box.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 22, 2002)

to me or to Way?  I don't have any private messages.


----------



## WayOfTheKeyboard (Oct 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by amk2 _
> 
> *The message was sent to you in your private messages, please check your messageson this forum.  I am only posting this, as I see that you posted without checking your message box. *



OOPS! 

Thanks for the reply. I'm new here and didn't know about the private messages. 

I emailed Dr. Chapel like you suggested. 

Thanks again,

Way


----------



## Sigung86 (Oct 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WayOfTheKeyboard _
> 
> *OOPS!
> 
> ...



Now .... You're catching on!    

Dan


----------



## Seig (Oct 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> 
> *DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!
> 
> ...


Thank you!  I love having an appreciative audience!:rofl:


----------



## Seig (Oct 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Michael_Browne _
> 
> *Seig,
> 
> ...


And that is the entire issue in a nutshell, it should NOT be wishfull thinking; it should be reality. Oh well, should, could, would.....So sad.


----------

