# Origin of Alternating Maces?



## Kenpodoc (Jul 4, 2004)

I'm curious.  It is my understanding that one of Mr. Parkers students developed Alternating maces and several other techniques  that replaced agressive twins and others in the original yellow belt repitoire.  Can anyone share some of this history with us.

My history.  I train with Mr. Steve Hatfield , one of Mr. Wedlake's students.  As part of the Planas - Wedlake lineage we study the Planas/Kelly yellow belt tequniques.  I personally think you can learn Kenpo with either set of techniques but I'm curious about the origens of the change.

I'm interested in the history of the changes.  I don't mind if people want to say why they like one technique over another.  I'd rather this didn't become a flame war about "real" kenpo.  I've met good and bad in every lineage.  It is my experience that Those who resort to name calling tend to fall into the bad group.

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## dubljay (Jul 7, 2004)

well I don't have an exact answer for you, but I do have an opinion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 on the matter.

 I am from a planas/la bounty lineage.  We teach alternating mace in place of agressive twins for the yellow belt requirements.  My instructor also teaches as he calls them "the three lost yellow belt techniques", Agressive twins, speading branch, and intelectual departure. (i know many schools still teach these)    

 Those three techniques are a bit more complex (from my point of view) and definately require more "man handling" to get the strikes to work.  This is difficult for beginners (especially kids) to do and it discourages them.  so changes were made to make the techniques not as difficult.

 Incodentally as I undersand it when EPAK adapted the current colored belt system it originally did not have a yellow belt, it started at orange. and prior to that it was the number of stripes on the belt that showed rank.  I am unsure of the validity of this information though.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 8, 2004)

My understanding is that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Planas developed the original written curriculum. It initially started at orange belt.  The yellow belt  techniques originally came from a Womans self defense course (so I've heard) and were tacked on to the beginning of the curriculum.  Mr Planas clearly still prefers the original yellow belt techniques.  I'm just curious who had Mr. Parker's ear when the redesigned curriculum was done.  Personally I've learned the techniques for both old and new both out of curiosity and because it's convenient to understand a common language at seminars.

Thank you for responding.  Mr. Labounty is a great instructor and the planas/La Bounty is a terrific lineage.

Jeff   :asian:


----------



## Doc (Jul 17, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Planas developed the original written curriculum.


Although they had a lot of input sir, it was not wholly developed by them.


> It initially started at orange belt.


That is correct.


> The yellow belt  techniques originally came from a Womans self defense course (so I've heard) and were tacked on to the beginning of the curriculum.


That is partially correct. Some of the techniques were from a women's self-defense course experiment. However, the original 10 techniques were developed specifically fror children. The learning curve and time element on the original chart comprised of 32 techniques meant most would take about a year to promote. Young kids lost interest without a promotion in a reasonable length of time. Ultimately this held true for everyone. Remember we essentially went from a loose unstructor list of unamed techniques, to 32 overnight. It took time to develop and see that this was way to many.

Originally before this material was begininng to take shape, the amount of the curriulum was so little that "color" belts were really not necessary. It wasn't unusual for a student to make black in a year. Therefore they just put black stripes or "tips" on a white belt to indicate what "kyu" you were. The belt only changed color at "brown" before finally black. Despite the stories to the contrary, it was rather easy for "men" to get a black belt quickly. Classes were full of active and ex-military personnel, law enforcement, bail bondsmen, semi-professional athletes, bikers, and "collection" agents.



> Mr Planas clearly still prefers the original yellow belt techniques.


It's only natural he would favor matrial he had a hand in creating. That however doesn't mean other material developed is not just as, or even more valid. Parker continued to evolve those techniques within the parameters allowed in the commercial vehicle.


> I'm just curious who had Mr. Parker's ear when the redesigned curriculum was done.


A lot of us did, but don't forget the Chinese Masters who acted as Parker instructors, and consultants to much of what he was doing. Of these people and his students, some had more influence on the comercial version, and others on more in-depth material. Some on both. Some stayed with and worked on the "pre-motion" kenpo, while other more educated instructors took the commercial material to more significant levels. Still others continued to evolve the non-commercial material. Kenpo is not a single entity, but a splintered tree of multiple evolutionary lines of various length branches. Some branches stopped growing, new branches (motion) sprung up, and others continued. None of them started in the same place at the same time.



> Personally I've learned the techniques for both old and new both out of curiosity and because it's convenient to understand a common language at seminars.


Sometimes historical perspective is important, but avoid being "married" to material unless it ultimately has practical viability. Parker often spoke of not "traditionalizing" his non-traditional art, especially the commercial version which must retain some measure of function over form first. But in answer to the original question re: Alternating Maces, it was Haumea Lefiti and Ark Wong who influenced this "idea" of the technique. However the commercial version attempts a "deflection." Parker "attacked" the arms as he was taught often dropping people to their knees on the first move alone.


> Mr. Labounty is a great instructor



I don't think that's much a secret. He's a class act all the way.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jul 17, 2004)

Doc,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. 

Jeff


----------



## Rob Broad (Jul 17, 2004)

Thanks Doc for adding to everyones knowledge on the topic.  I had earlier heard hat the Yellow Belt material came for a children's introductory program and adults started to whine saying they wanted to to do the same material so it was adopted for everyone.


----------



## Doc (Jul 17, 2004)

Rob Broad said:
			
		

> Thanks Doc for adding to everyones knowledge on the topic.  I had earlier heard hat the Yellow Belt material came for a children's introductory program and adults started to whine saying they wanted to to do the same material so it was adopted for everyone.



Yes sir, that is exactly correct. Students were caught up in a wave of transitions. Parker was feeling his way along in several directions at the same time. On one hand he continued his own study with Chinese and non Chinese masters getting deeper into his "Chinese Kenpo." He was beginning to fine tune his own knowledge and skills and leaving the Japanese/Okinawan influences behind him and virtually cutting off one branch of his "Karate" tree, and dropping all of their influences, especially language. 

You can see the difference in the old film where movements were rapid but essentially linear. You can see the jiu-jitsu influence as well in the old film as attacker's were dropped and thrown and used "break falls" to prevent injuries on the matted floors.

This is where Parker bgan to be more explosive and movements began to become more intricate. It was during this period the forms like "Tiger and the Crane, Two-Man Set (also known as "Book Set"), and "Star Block" were lifted right from aspects of Hung gar, Five Animal, Splashing Hands, and Tai QI Quan virtually intact. Many students learned these as Parker did, but when a new branch sprung up in the lates sixties creating a motion-based "American kenpo" designed to proliferate, Parker continued himself on Chinese Kenpo while pushing his motion based vehicle forward.

The "childs" yellow belt became a bone of contentions as some adults watched kids begin to promote over them rather quickly. I believe "whine" was Parker's exact word. This is also why the first rank only has ten techniques. It was Tom Kelly who suggested the "round" number at random vesus the 32 requirement for adults. But contributing to this as well was an unclear cut off point as to who would fall into the yellow belt category. Bigger and older "kids" wanted the yellow belt so the abitrary age cut off kept creeping upward until it was abandoned.

Parker did have plans to level the technique chart numbers by adding to the yellow belt, but never offcially got around to it. It is something I have done of my own, and utilize the "extra" techniques to teach specific early attacks that needed to be addressed, as well as the principles they force one to learn. I've been on a 16 technique per course curruculum across the board to black since the mid-seveties, and it functions well for me.

This kind of pokes holes in the theory that the yellow belt techniques were designed to teach the "principles" for the rest of the system, as I have heard some say. In the beginning these techniques were almost throw-a-ways. But as they became more a part of the curriculum, they were modified to come more in line with the basic skills taught at that level. So "Aggressive Twins," Which required foot movement, a deflecting block, and a knife-edge kick virtually simultaneously was dropped, and replaced with "Alternating Maces." It was reasoned that kicking skills are difficult for a beginner with the possible exception of a front kick. That is why the front kick is the only kick represented at that level.

Many origins, many branches, many directions, and many kenpo's all from the same Ed Parker Source. Japanese influenced, Chinese influenced, and American commercialism influenced with all the "tweeners" in various states of transitions. Some branches long, some cut short, and some sprouting new branches of their own. This is what makes any argument or discussion of what Kenpo is or is not difficult, and it should remind people to only speak in terms of what "they" themselves do and teach instead of speaking of kenpo as this single entity that is the same for everyone. It never was and that, as you skillfully pointed out, even includes belts. Some never got "colored" belts, some did. Some never got "yellow" belts but got other colors. Some never got "orange" or "blue" all added later at different times along with the material that defined them. The bulk of the Parker knowledge has never been generally taught, and is still out there. And I do mean "out there." 

We can all rest assured that our kenpo is only as good or bad as we make it, and the only thing that makes our kenpo right or wrong is common sense and learned logic. That is the true lesson of Ed Parker.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jul 17, 2004)

Good posts, Sir! :asian: 

Always good insight.


----------



## Rob Broad (Jul 17, 2004)

At times I feel there is so much material that just isn't seen in the Yellow, Orange and Purple belts that you could easily explore those levels for a life time or two and still have moreto learn.  I find everytime I am fortunate to train with someone through those 3 level I end up learning form their perspective,  and love that part of the art.


----------



## Doc (Jul 18, 2004)

Rob Broad said:
			
		

> At times I feel there is so much material that just isn't seen in the Yellow, Orange and Purple belts that you could easily explore those levels for a life time or two and still have moreto learn.  I find everytime I am fortunate to train with someone through those 3 level I end up learning form their perspective,  and love that part of the art.


\

Yes sir you are correct. I remember some years ago I had a gagle of black belts migrate from another local school. They spent the first year with me re-defining their basics and working on "yellow." To a man they never regreted it and have often expressed it. I once estimated I could teach yellow for about 5 years without boring anyone, and in fact I do. No matter what level a student attains, they are forced to revisit all previous material for refinement and the dessemination of additional knowledge.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 18, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> \
> 
> Yes sir you are correct. I remember some years ago I had a gagle of black belts migrate from another local school. They spent the first year with me re-defining their basics and working on "yellow." To a man they never regreted it and have often expressed it. I once estimated I could teach yellow for about 5 years without boring anyone, and in fact I do. No matter what level a student attains, they are forced to revisit all previous material for refinement and the dessemination of additional knowledge.


I had a very unique experience with Doc not too long back. I visited his school, and we chatted about kenpo, and it's various evolutions, capabilities, limitations, definitions, and manifestations. I was particularly intrigued prior to meeting him by a post in which he said accomplished black belts on this forum could not pass a yellow belt exam in his school. Hmm, thought I. Been doing kenpo for a long time...what could be that different? Surely, it would just be a case of learning how HE wanted 5 swords done, and I've learned about 20 versions already, so what's one more? What could be all that different?

Watching his group, then talking with him in the halls for some time after...everything. I've trained in many of the various trees in kenpo, some good some bad, some with proper pedigrees and some with questionable "made most of it up in my back yard" ones...have been doing this since I was a rugrat in Hawaii, and pretty much not stopped since (aside from concurrant side trips into JJJ, kickboxing, BJJ, etc.). All of his basics are trained in a different way then anything I've seen before. I have been stepping back into a neutral bow since my very first kenpo lesson, on my 6th birthday in 1971. Thought I pretty much had it down.

Doc shot it full of more holes then Daffy Duck during Wabbit season. As a Doctor with an ongoing post-graduate interest in kinesiology, functional anatomy & biomechanics, Traditional Chinese Medicine and neurology, what was even cooler were the reasons he gave, and the simple biomechanical demonstrations he used to make his point. I never hold stances deeply or firmly to begin with, since being light footed and ready to be moved with the wave instead of knocked over by it was much more important to me then stoic, rock-o-gibralter stances (old body-surfer). Interestingly, I couldn't hold the stance if I tried. Minor variations in "stomping and slapping" maneuvers WHILE settling into neutral bow triggered enough neuro-mechanical mechanisms for re-alignment, that the tables switched and Doc was putting out the go-nowhere effort to budge me...while I ain't tryin'. All related to the little beginners movement of stepping back into a neutral bow.

Following items included basics, including blocks, strikes, maneuvers, etc., each with subtle modification causing major differences...and I'm not talking about changing which way the toes are pointing, or the weight distribution in a stance. It's all done differently, and it all means something. SD Techniques are recognizable (i.e., "that looks like Thundewring Hammers"), but performed with enough subtle mods for it to be obvious that, what you're watching, is not what is in the Encyclopedia. At first, disconcerting...("That's wierd, why would they do a silly thing like that?"). Then you see the effects...defenders mechanics strengthened; attackers systems methodically broken down...("Aha! That's why they do that! Well I'll be...!"). Forms just looked plain wierd ("That doesn't look like any SF1 I've ever seen, and I've seen many"). Then you get a glimpse of why, and it occurs to you that what we know of this vast universe is really quite small. Concept in exercise physio: Recruitment. How many muscles can I get to join in on this movement to make it stronger? Agonist/Antagonist/Synergist = some muscles are on, some are off, some ain't even in the picture (unless specifically called in for recruitment). I'm watching Docs preliminary moves, with my brain flying at a mile a minute at how they utilize multiple laws of muscle physiology, kinesiology & biomechanics to cancel out the limiting effects of antagonists, while recruiting otherwise silent synergists...freaking smoke coming outta my ears. The rocket ship speed associated with kenpo seniors? All there, but somehow managing to be delivered with greater purposefulness of action, and not just whipping it out there for whipping's sake.

I never feel sorry for uke's (part of the road...cowboy up, and deal with it), and I never liked Clutching Feathers...thought it was crap the first day I learned it, and kept that decision for many years, no matter how many versions I saw, or how authoritative the class or demo was by any given Senior. During that class, I actually felt sorry for the uke, and was busting a stitch to jump out there to learn & practice Clutching Feathers.

Not all kenpo is created equal, and not everybody is teaching the same kenpo.

I'm set to start teaching a small kenpo class in the "the barrio" to provide interested kids with a higher occasion to rise to energetically, so I'll hang on to my black belt & black gi for the sake of the uniform. However, in consideration of what I've recently been exposed to, it seems silly. Unwarranted. And I've had clutches of kenpo black belt orphans and disowned's come to train with me because of my own background & experience. Now I am looking forward to strapping on a white belt over a white gi, so I can re-learn kenpo from the ground, up.

Have a relationship to save or end; a major business plan to implement while the iron is hot; and some "life gets in the way" barriers to address before I can make the worthy commitment. But ahm lukkin fuhward to it.

Dave.

PS -- re: Slapping and Stomping...done right, in the right places and for the right reasons, it's related to a great many things. Like proper structural alignment after stepping back into a neutral bow. Trick is to learn when and where it's appropriate, versus when and where it's just dramatics and noise.


----------



## Doc (Jul 18, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I had a very unique experience with Doc not too long back. I visited his school, and we chatted about kenpo, and it's various evolutions, capabilities, limitations, definitions, and manifestations. I was particularly intrigued prior to meeting him by a post in which he said accomplished black belts on this forum could not pass a yellow belt exam in his school. Hmm, thought I. Been doing kenpo for a long time...what could be that different? Surely, it would just be a case of learning how HE wanted 5 swords done, and I've learned about 20 versions already, so what's one more? What could be all that different?
> 
> Watching his group, then talking with him in the halls for some time after...everything. I've trained in many of the various trees in kenpo, some good some bad, some with proper pedigrees and some with questionable "made most of it up in my back yard" ones...have been doing this since I was a rugrat in Hawaii, and pretty much not stopped since (aside from concurrant side trips into JJJ, kickboxing, BJJ, etc.). All of his basics are trained in a different way then anything I've seen before. I have been stepping back into a neutral bow since my very first kenpo lesson, on my 6th birthday in 1971. Thought I pretty much had it down.
> 
> ...



You're too kind Dr. Dave. Hopefully we'll get together when I come back from Europe. I got a couple of things to run by you. right now I'm fighting a bug. The sleep thing keeps me susceptible you know.


----------



## Rainman (Jul 18, 2004)

> Not all kenpo is created equal, and not everybody is teaching the same kenpo.



For someone who was opposed to "accu flap" you sure have embraced the technical side of the art and made some good contributions as well.   Now I suppose you see there is no such thing as accu flap but there sure are a helluva lot of salesmen around.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 18, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> For someone who was opposed to "accu flap" you sure have embraced the technical side of the art and made some good contributions as well. Now I suppose you see there is no such thing as accu flap but there sure are a helluva lot of salesmen around.


Still an accu-flap skeptic (read "motion kenpo definitions translating into not much of anything substantial"). But thanks, neverthelss  

D.


----------



## howardr (Jul 18, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> All of his basics are trained in a different way then anything I've seen before.
> 
> Doc shot it full of more holes then Daffy Duck during Wabbit season. As a Doctor with an ongoing post-graduate interest in kinesiology, functional anatomy & biomechanics, Traditional Chinese Medicine and neurology, what was even cooler were the reasons he gave, and the simple biomechanical demonstrations he used to make his point. I never hold stances deeply or firmly to begin with, since being light footed and ready to be moved with the wave instead of knocked over by it was much more important to me then stoic, rock-o-gibralter stances (old body-surfer). Interestingly, I couldn't hold the stance if I tried. Minor variations in "stomping and slapping" maneuvers WHILE settling into neutral bow triggered enough neuro-mechanical mechanisms for re-alignment, that the tables switched and Doc was putting out the go-nowhere effort to budge me...while I ain't tryin'. All related to the little beginners movement of stepping back into a neutral bow.
> 
> ...



While not having quite the bredth and scope of both martial and scientific background as you, I fully mirror your sentiments and experience.  I've been to schools across the country purporting to teach Kenpo and none can hold a candle to what I found being taught by Dr. Chapel. It's a world of difference that can't be done justice until seen and especially felt.

What some might feel are "odd" or perhaps implausible SL-4 explanations make perfect sense once one has them demonstrated to them and by them hands-on - it makes all the difference in the world. And just as soon as you think you've strengthed a neutral bow, vertical outward block or heel palm as much as possible, Dr. Chapel will add another layer of enhancements (which smoothly integrate with what you've already been learning) on top of that! It just keeps getting better and better. 

I'm not sure exactly what you've seen so far, but SL-4 realistically deals with hands-on attacks, such as bear hugs, tackles, grabs, chokes, holds, etc. in a way that all the other Kenpo schools I had been been to failed to do.  The techniques are taught with the psychology of confrontation built-in, and cover the range of the various assaults from the initial attempted movement all the way to the actual completed contact, i.e., not everything is an attempted assault.

As soon as I saw this in action and had it demonstrated on me, I knew this approach was the only one worth taking. Here was a thought out and highly refined method, an actual structured methodology not just external mimicry, to actually get a normal person on their way to moving and hitting like Mr. Parker.

And, yes, the explosive speed is all there and most certainly the power and the "rootedness" that one often hears of in martial legend but is so ephemeral in martial reality.

I too started from scratch and was never happier.

Welcome.


----------



## distalero (Jul 28, 2004)

Not earthshaking, but for accuracy's sake: (unless I misunderstood what you said) the Two Man Set and the Book Set are 2 (technically 3) different forms. The Two Man Set is an alternating attack and response to attack done by...yep, two people; two are required to do the one form. The Book Set is done by one person. I don't know what the origin of the Two Man Set is, but when I was taught it back in '71 it didn't seem to be derived from the same general style of the Book Set.


----------



## Doc (Aug 1, 2004)

distalero said:
			
		

> Not earthshaking, but for accuracy's sake: (unless I misunderstood what you said) the Two Man Set and the Book Set are 2 (technically 3) different forms. The Two Man Set is an alternating attack and response to attack done by...yep, two people; two are required to do the one form. The Book Set is done by one person. I don't know what the origin of the Two Man Set is, but when I was taught it back in '71 it didn't seem to be derived from the same general style of the Book Set.



In the Ed Parker lineage, the term "Book Set" refers to the Two-man Set in his book "Secrets of Chinese Karate." Many left, (like the Tracy's) and changed terminology and added sets that created confusion. The original "Book Set' has also been called "Panther Set" depending on your lineage. 1971 was almost a decade after the set was done by Jimmy Woo and inserted in the Parker book. At the time the "Two-Man Set" had no name, and was simply referred to as "The Book Set" because it was the one in "the book." This was a different time when Parker's two books were also simply known as the "Blue Book," and the "Orange Book."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 1, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> In the Ed Parker lineage, the term "Book Set" refers to the Two-man Set in his book "Secrets of Chinese Karate." Many left, (like the Tracy's) and changed terminology and added sets that created confusion. The original "Book Set' has also been called "Panther Set" depending on your lineage. 1971 was almost a decade after the set was done by Jimmy Woo and inserted in the Parker book. At the time the "Two-Man Set" had no name, and was simply referred to as "The Book Set" because it was the one in "the book." This was a different time when Parker's two books were also simply known as the "Blue Book," and the "Orange Book."


If you can remember 1971, doesn't that mean you weren't there?:boing2: 

*Welcome back, Doc!*

D.


----------



## Doc (Aug 1, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If you can remember 1971, doesn't that mean you weren't there?:boing2:
> 
> *Welcome back, Doc!*
> 
> D.


In 1971 I was graduating from my first Sheriff's Acacdemy Class. I had to remember it. Besides I thought that line was reserved for the sixties, but either way, I remember them too. Its a straight "nerd" thing.

A few reviews here;
http://pub3.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=202059768&cpv=2

Hope things are coming along Dr. D.


----------



## distalero (Aug 1, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> In the Ed Parker lineage, the term "Book Set" refers to the Two-man Set in his book "Secrets of Chinese Karate." Many left, (like the Tracy's) and changed terminology and added sets that created confusion. The original "Book Set' has also been called "Panther Set" depending on your lineage. 1971 was almost a decade after the set was done by Jimmy Woo and inserted in the Parker book. At the time the "Two-Man Set" had no name, and was simply referred to as "The Book Set" because it was the one in "the book." This was a different time when Parker's two books were also simply known as the "Blue Book," and the "Orange Book."



     Interesting. Never heard anything called the Panther Set; the form taught as the "Book Set" seemed to be primarily a so-called "northern" form, lot of long-arm blocks (strikes), and long sweeps (the supposed rationale was that this movement was what was allowed if you were dressed for the cold), and some rather odd footwork involved in position changes. This form, as well as the Two Man Set of course, was presented and taught in Steve Fox's classes. I started in '69, I think, soon after I rotated back ( what do you know, some of it is hard to remember), and the Book Set as I've described it was taught as late as '77 if I remember correctly. If there was a Tracy influence in there somewhere I would be very surprised, but then again, at that time we were "sponges" for knowledge and not particularly politically aware, so what do I know. I think things were a little looser back then. Again, interesting: I'll have to poke around my "roots", see what I come up with. Apparently a ton and a half of politics has happened since so I don't know that I'll have much luck. Too bad.


----------

