# Ed Parker was wrong?



## kenpo_cory (Sep 7, 2003)

I was reading the book "The Journey" last night and I was reading Chuck Sullivan's story. Well, in one section on page 40 Mr. Sullivan tells a story about Mr. Parker bringing in Bruce Lee to watch a class. In Mr. Sullivan's exacts words: 

"One day in the early sixties Ed told a group of us that he had met an incredible young martial artist and had invited him to observe the class. He introduced a skinny Chinese kid to us named Bruce Lee, who sat in the waiting room watching us on the mats. After the class was over, Ed went into his office leaving us alone with Bruce. We were having a pleasant conversation until Bruce casually said, "I was watching you guys do something earlier, and I was wondering why you were doing it." He then demonstrated what we had been practicing. Of course, the answer was obvious to all of us. We were doing it because that's the way Ed Parker was teaching it. When no one spoke up Bruce dropped a bomb. "Well, I just wondered because it's wrong," he said. That was the first time I ever heard the words "Ed Parker" and "wrong" matched up, and I was stunned. I looked around at the other guys. A couple of them looked like they were going to grab Bruce by his skinny neck and shake him until his butt plate fell off. Bruce quickly went on to explain that what we were doing violated a basic principle. Not a concept, but a principle. For example, the principle of gravity dictates that you can't stand on one leg unless that leg is directly under your center. You can't do it any other way without falling down. Then he showed us why the move was wrong. It wasn't enough to destroy my faith in the system, but Bruce was right. (end quote)


Now, I was wondering why would Mr. Parker teach an entire class a wrong principle? Did he do it on purpose to see if anyone would question him? Did he not know he was wrong? Did he set those guys up by showing them the wrong way and purposefully bringing in Bruce? This story had me wondering about the whole purpose of it. Can anyone verify or deny the validity of the story? Considering Mr. Sullivan got his Black belt in September 1962 I doubt there's anyone on this forum that was there. Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out to you guys and see if anyone has any answers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 7, 2003)

While I can't answer your question specifically, I have heard that there are techniques in kenpo that are wrong or flawed, and are there to make to student think.  As my kenpo knowledge never got to the higher levels, I can't answer with any authority, so please take it with a grain of salt. 

GoldenDragons one of the seniors on MT, he might have some insite.

Yo!  DC, where are you?


----------



## satans.barber (Sep 7, 2003)

Well, nobody's perfect!

Ian.


----------



## Jay Bell (Sep 7, 2003)

I agree with Ian.  Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques.  Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws?  Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.

All in all, techniques are there for you to learn *from*...not just just blindly memorize the physical movements.  They create strategy...moving from one principle to the next.  Think of the techniques as ideas of methods of defense...and not an unstoppable physical movement.

I'm a bit surprised at Chuck Sullivan's story.  It honestly sounds like these students in the class had diefied Mr. Parker...someone with sound combat experiance couldn't possibly know more then our good Mr. Parker...<??>


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 7, 2003)

As you said this was in the 60's, when Mr. Parker's Kenpo did not have the degree of sophistication he later added.  At that time, if I am not mistaken, it was heavily influenced by Chinese Sets and Forms.  This version is seen at the heart of the Tracy Kenpo practitioners, although they also grew and evolved, it was not the same direction as Ed Parker.  Mr. Parker began to apply logic and physics to Kenpo, developing things like outer rim and point of origin.  These are seen in other systems also, but not called the same things, nor are they all found within the same system.

I think that you can ask some of the other guys around at the time about Bruce Lee.  The nunchaku story is hilarious, and the tree behind the old Pasadena school.  Mike Pick, Tom Kelly, Ron Chapel, etc. all have stories.  It is safe to say that Bruce Lee's questioning his roots and traditional Chinese kung-fu, was similar to Mr. Parker's questing mind in looking for "answers" in the Art.  You must also realize that Mr. Parker's Kenpo of the time, looked very kung-fooey, the very thing Bruce Lee was rebelling against.  

There are so many stories ... suffice it to say, that I have heard directly from people who were there and Mr. Parker, that they became fast friends.  It is no wonder JKD (Inosanto version) has techniques like Returning Gift, they are just not called that.

Oss


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques.  Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws?  Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.
> *



When Ed Parker was developing Kenpo in Utah, he taught police officers.  These officers would return back to class to share experiences of what worked and what didn't.   He then made changes based on their experiences. 

Many techniques were combat-tested that way.

However, Ed is a strong believer of "Kenpo Evolution"--in other words, he wasn't stuck on tradition just because it has to be done that way.

Ed also knew that depending on circumstances and sizes of the attacker/defender, some techniques have to, by necessity, be modified.

Bottomline, we need to learn the basics enough to then be able to adjust.  Be flexible.

Ed never was a "god" of Kenpo nor did he intend himself to be regarded as such.  He should never be considered as having the "final" say, just because he originally taught it in a cartain way. 

We do need to give him credit for bringing Kenpo into existence and helping the style to become more known.

- Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 7, 2003)

So just what principle was it that the tech violated?

So is the notion that Mr. Parker wasn't perfect (really?), but Bruce Lee was?

Personally, I'd argue that their early deaths were a much better sign of what their real limits as martial artists were than this technique or that technique...

But it is an interesting question...thanks.


----------



## Jay Bell (Sep 7, 2003)

> So is the notion that Mr. Parker wasn't perfect (really?), but Bruce Lee was?



Not a chance.  Bruce was far from perfect....just wondering where you came up with that inclination?


----------



## don bohrer (Sep 7, 2003)

I belong to the AKKA org that came out of TRA-CO. We have Kata such as boxing form, stalking panther, tiger and crane, and others that come to us from Hung Ga. I doubt all the original concepts of Hung Ga are represented now. Matter of fact after attending a Hung ga school here I am starting to understand things found in these kata a little differently. 

So do we know what the violating principle was?


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *So just what principle was it that the tech violated?*



I'm not sure, he never said. But in the story Mr. Sullivan said it was a basic one. 



> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *I agree with Ian. Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques. Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws? Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.
> 
> All in all, techniques are there for you to learn *from*...not just just blindly memorize the physical movements. They create strategy...moving from one principle to the next. Think of the techniques as ideas of methods of defense...and not an unstoppable physical movement.?*



The thing Bruce pointed out was not the ineffectiveness of a technique but that something they were doing was violating a basic principle.  We don't learn techniques to learn how to violate principles, but to learn correct ones. I in no way question the effectiveness of the system I study. And I believe that when Mr. Parker went to California and opened his studio that he had a very good working knowledge of basic principles and knew if a certain movement violated one. That's why this story is so confusing to me. But, I also understand that Mr. Parker was not perfect or superhuman.


----------



## Jay Bell (Sep 7, 2003)

Yeow...I just re-read my post.  I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't assuming that people didn't understand the reason techniques exist.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 7, 2003)

The original post was premised on the notion that Bruce Lee was Parker's superior in insight, since he was the only one able to point out the sloppy error--and it is interesting that the exact error isn't mentioned. Seems to me that that would be fundamental.

Second off--of course these guys aren't perfect. Of course, "we need to be flexible." Beyond these truisms, what does this anecdote suggest to anybody?

Third--"Bruce?" You've met?

Fourth--could anybody point out exactly which techniques, as they presently more or less stand, are flawed? and how they are?

Interesting topic.


----------



## MJS (Sep 7, 2003)

I think that there are a few things to look at here.

1- What was is that the students were doing, that Bruce thought that it was wrong?

2- Whatever it was that was "wrong" to Bruce, might not be wrong to someone else.  Was he basing this off of something in JKD?

3- As for meeting Bruce.  This has nothing to do with the poster knowing him, it has to do with Chuck Sullivan knowing him.

4-  As for what is flawed and what is not flawed.  The tech. are going to work differently for everybody.  Have all of these tech. been tested under real circumstances?  I dont think so.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Sep 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kenpo_cory _
> I in no way question the effectiveness of the system I study. [/B]



Considering we all train for different reasons, I would think that if you were interested in SD, and being able to protect yourself, that you would want to question the effectiveness.  I"m not just talking about the Parker system, I'm talking about any system.  If you are going to invest time and money into learning to protect yourself, shouldnt you know that what you're learning is going to work under any condition?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound like I"m knocking the Parker system, because I'm not.  I've been training in it for a while, and it is my base art.  

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 7, 2003)

Uh...no. I feel the same way about calling Bruce Lee "Bruce," that I feel about my students calling, say, Emily Dickinson, "Emily:" not only does it seem to me to be, oddly enough, a breach of courtesy, but it suggests a kind of transference in which somebody dead is taken for a living, close acquaintance...

In this case, too, I think the name use is significant. The problem, to me, is a combo of too much veneration for a fantasy of a person, and not enough respect for an art and its techniques...

"Parker," "Lee," are for most of us what Michel Foucault would call an, "author-function," which entails a whole lot of stuff I won't take up anybody's time with.


----------



## pete (Sep 8, 2003)

I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
And so dear friends
You just have to carry on...

lighten up francis and stay on topic


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Considering we all train for different reasons, I would think that if you were interested in SD, and being able to protect yourself, that you would want to question the effectiveness.  I"m not just talking about the Parker system, I'm talking about any system.  If you are going to invest time and money into learning to protect yourself, shouldnt you know that what you're learning is going to work under any condition?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound like I"m knocking the Parker system, because I'm not.  I've been training in it for a while, and it is my base art.
> ...



I don't question the effectiveness because I've used it, I've seen it used and without a shadow of a doubt, I know it works. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say I could make it work under ANY condition, but I have used it to defend myself. I do agree with you, at one time I did question it, and my questions were answered.


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh...no. I feel the same way about calling Bruce Lee "Bruce," that I feel about my students calling, say, Emily Dickinson, "Emily:" not only does it seem to me to be, oddly enough, a breach of courtesy, but it suggests a kind of transference in which somebody dead is taken for a living, close acquaintance...
> 
> In this case, too, I think the name use is significant. The problem, to me, is a combo of too much veneration for a fantasy of a person, and not enough respect for an art and its techniques...
> ...



So would it have changed the context if I would have refered to him as Mr. Lee or Bruce Lee?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2003)

Sorry that I took the issue seriously and wrote what I thought. I'll try not to do it again. By the way..."lighten up, Francis," works better if you use the feminine form of the name. Unless, of course, you're happy enough with just the suggestion that intellectuals are wimps...

As for "what's in a name," well, it's just my way of trying to get at a) the general construction of these sorts of discussions, in which it always seems to be a matter of, "errors," and "mistakes," v. "my superior knowledge," and b) the question always seems to be, "who personally received the Truth of Holy Writ?"

I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...

Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 8, 2003)

Unless you call Chuck Sullivan, we may never know ... but I bet it is one that has been remedied and addressed by Mr. Parker's work in the subsequent 25 to 28 years following.

-MB


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 8, 2003)

From the Holy Tome of the First Church of the Immaculate Misconception and Presumptuous Assumption. 

*How many angels may ye have dancing upon the head of a pin? * 

 :shrug:


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson_
> *Sorry that I took the issue seriously and wrote what I thought. I'll try not to do it again.*



Don't do that, this forum is for sharing information as well as opinions. 



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson_
> *I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...*



I'd have to agree with Mr. Billings and say unless someone contacts Mr. Sullivan we'll probably never know. 



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson_
> *Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?*



I certainly hope none, or the technique seriously needs to be changed.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 8, 2003)

How many times have you as a student been taught something and incorporated it into your kenpo only to find out that you aren't doing it exactly like you were supposed to?  Well unless you learned the 10th degree version from day one you will fall into this category.  Who knows if those guys were even doing it right.  Then there is always the possiblity that Mr. Parker made a mistake.......   ooooooooohhhh a human making a mistake.....   say it ain't so.



> Kenpo_Cory
> I don't question the effectiveness because I've used it, I've seen it used and without a shadow of a doubt, I know it works



That's great, then your training has served its basic function that of self preservation.  However, we all know that a car will run without engine oil, but that doesn't mean that you want to do it like that for long.  Every process has an optimum level of efficiency, those who study the art long term are generally the individuals who are seeking this optimum level.  This journey requires you to evaluate the most minute details of your movement, even the sequence and methods in which you execute the movements.  You can discover all these things yourself, if you live that long, but the most temporally-economic method would be to find a knowledgeable instructor and ask questions.  If you find yourself in an environment that seems very fundamentalist (i.e. the reason we do this is because it was taught this way by the FOUNDER and no other way is permissable), I would be a little worried.  Times change, things change.  Mr. Parker didn't like several of the techniques or forms the way they were written, quite honestly he rarely did them that way.  So if Parker didn't like them or do them that way, then why should those sequences become the holy scripture of kenpo?  



> I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...



Of course you do, because it threatens your precious tradition. 



> Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for *you* all?



Aaaah, I always enjoy the sense of superiority that you Tatum guys try to throw in everyones face.  I was beginning to wonder if you were going to say anything, and alas I was not disappointed for there it was waiting at the bottom. :shrug: 
Please see the statement about fundamentalism.

Have a great kenpo day.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Origin. posted by Kaith Rustaz _*
> I have heard that some kenpo techniques flawed, so as to make students think.
> GoldenDragons one of the seniors on MT, he might have some insite.
> *


There are several very good posts that have illustrated several insights.  We must consider that there are a number of things that could have happened.  To get down to the bottom of this question will be impossible since two of the three persons in question are not with us anymore.

My feelings without more factual information on this question are this....

1) Ed Parker was not perfect and he made several changes/updates from the early '50's till the time he passed away..... and if would have been able to spend another 10 years, I believe that he would have made even more as new insights would come to his attention, sufficient research taken then implication as he has done so many times in the past.  If any of us could take a "time machine" back to this era..... we all may have had something to say about what they were doing as well!  Mr. Parker did a good job (in my opinion of leaving us with a tremendously better art .... than what he had to start with). 

2) Since we don't know what the "students" were doing that violated "Bruce Lee's" opinion..... we can only GUESS as to whether he was right or wrong.
Possibly the students were not doing it as it was supposed to be done in the first place <<OR>> He had actually caught something that the students Instructor (Chuck Sullivan) had not learned or taught yet, <<OR>> this could be  something that Ed Parker had not either touched on yet or possibly had any knowledge of at that time.

3) Ed Parker taught different ideas to many, but I have not seen any wrong techniques in the system just individuals that may not understand the how's or whys of the techniques.  Students should by default always ask and seek to know all there is to know about a technique and/or its possible many applications.

4) We also know that Bruce Lee was a very cocky young individual that has become "larger than life" due to the movies and such.  This also could have been his bold unique way to "gain attention" to illustrate his point of view on the issue.  

The question to me is, was everyone in the room doing this movement wrong in "Lee's opinion" or was it just a couple of students.... by the way what rank were the students in question.

LOL..... just my thoughts on this.  Don't read too much extra into the statement otherwise you can go nuts with assumptions or start down fruitless paths that don't matter.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2003)

Dear Kenpo Yahoo:

My, "precious tradition?"  What the hell are you talking about? Please show me exactly where I asserted Mr. Parker's--or anybody else's--papal infallibility.

I'm going to do us all a favor and avoid responding to that weevily little bit about Mr. Tatum.

I'm sorry that you find the discussion of ideas and different understandings offensive.

You might find it works better if you advance your own ideas, offer your own analyses, pick out your own evidence.


----------



## pete (Sep 8, 2003)

who said anything about wimps? or anything about intellect whatsoever?  and what is the deal with any inferences made to the feminine form? i'm a bit confused.

humility is a better barometer for inner light; don't confuse  bombastic pomposity with intellect.  seems like you were trying to make a point, maybe too hard...

... and he looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry...

everyone makes mistakes, the enlightened learn from them.  As did Ed, Bruce, Abraham, Martin, and John...


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Times change, things change.  Mr. Parker didn't like several of the techniques or forms the way they were written, quite honestly he rarely did them that way.  So if Parker didn't like them or do them that way, then why should those sequences become the holy scripture of kenpo?*



I agree with you on this one. I can't say we do EPAK because my instructor has changed quite a few things. However, all of the principles and concepts remain universal.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2003)

Pete:

Did it ever occur that writing, "lighten up, francis," might just be a wee bit patronizing? Or that accusing others of...oh. never mind. I notice that you haven't dealt with the issues raised.

Every time something like this comes up, the accusation goes out unto all lands that the matter divides neatly into "traditionalists," and, "innovators," with the innovators putting themselves on the side of God, truth, and the good old American way.

Claiming that people like me and Clyde are "traditionalists," is hilarious. More to the point, this "either/or," is a simplistic way to see the issue. And remarks about folks' instructors remains a convenient way to duck out on thinking about anything--not to mention building up one's own ego, which was my point in the first place.

An example? Well, if you'll read the first post I wrote, I seem to be a member of a church that thinks its founder led a fallible and human life...hm.

An example of something I think flawed? Well, read my posts. But here're a couple: it's, "analysis," dammit, not "analyization;" those Pledges are increasingly repulsive; kenpo claims a fundamental conformity with the way the Universe works that I wonder about more and more.

Sorry, gotta go now. Awaiting the lightning bolt from the cloudless sky...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 8, 2003)

I just don't understand what the big deal is. 

Everyone is inclined to make a mistake, even the greatest of "masters." Making mistakes is how we all learn. I'm sure Mr. Parker made a ton of mistakes in his lifetime, as I am sure did Mr. Lee. I see nothing wrong with that.

Nobody's perfect.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2003)

The simple fact is, EP did.

Otherwise Kenpo at the time of his death would have been the same as when it was introduced.

He continued to evolve the art right up to the time of his passing, just like so many other inovators.



The big questions here is:

What technique is in question?

Was it later 'fixed' by EP or is it still in the core?

Unless we know this, everythings just needless speculation and that leads to lost tempers, etc.

:asian:


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> 
> 
> The big questions here is:
> ...



You're correct.  Unless we know what tech. is being questioned, the debate is going nowhere.  The only way to know, is to call Chuck Sullivan.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2003)

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


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2003)

Mike:

I am sorry, but please show me where I've argued for tradition just for tradition's sake. The discussion you mention certainly isn't an example--so where is it?

This makes about as much sense as my arguing that you're just changing things for the sake of changing things, to show off how innovative you are. I'm not arguing that by any means, and I don't think you are, either.

Again: it's easy to separate everybody into simply-opposed camps. That's not how things actually work, and that's not what I think, either.

In fact, I'd argue that in such a topic as this, both "pro," and, "anti," represent weird distortions of reality.

In a certain sense, actually I couldn't care less whether Mr. Parker ever blotted a line. That's not remotely the issue.

The issue, I think, lies in the sorts of questions already mentioned.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Sep 8, 2003)

Do you think we can start an "ARGUE ZONE" Category for portions of strings that go off topic ... like this one and turn into flame matches...????   ..... 

Hey.......Flame Port...... that could be it's title.....
:rofl: 

:asian:


----------



## Seig (Sep 8, 2003)

Ok Guys,
I don't want to have to "officially" put on my moderator hat.  Please keep friendly, polite, respectfull, and on topic.  If you want to throw rocks at each other and argue, take it to PM, Email, Chat, or IM.
Thanks,
Seig


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 9, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Seig *
> 
> _Ok Guys,
> I don't want to have to "officially" put on my moderator hat._



Noooooo! Not the Mod. Hat! Anything but that!


----------



## KenpoDave (Sep 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *could anybody point out exactly which techniques, as they presently more or less stand, are flawed? and how they are?
> 
> Interesting topic. *



If my memory is correct, the principle violated was that of crossing the center of the body to block a punch, i.e the right inward block to the right punch in Five Swords.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 10, 2003)

Huh, That's funny.  I think we just had a big discussion about that on the Kenpo Technical Forum.  I believe the title was something about hand isolations in form 1.  That's interesting to say the least.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 12, 2003)

Wow, it sure got quite.  :shrug:


----------



## jeffkyle (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Wow, it sure got quite.  :shrug: *



I think you mean Quiet!


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *I think you mean Quiet! *



Yeah! That's it! Quiet! :lol: Damn moderators... I say... I say... it's the moderators that are scaring all the posters away! With their mod hats and all... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I say we shoot a couple of 'em! :armed: Let's show 'em who it is that really runs this place!


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 12, 2003)

It's your bullet baby!


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 12, 2003)

OK Billings, 

Please keep it on topic.


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 12, 2003)

... I thought a little thread drift was ok???? 

DARN those MODS!!!!:angry:


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 12, 2003)

ok you guys are starting to frighten me. And I thought the guys I trained with were weird.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 12, 2003)

It has been quite quiet.  I think we ought to shoot shots with them and show them who's boss!  Right after some of you take Kenpo typing and Kenpo spelling lessons!  :lol:

Don't make me put on my moderator's hat ... Uh ... Wait ...  Must remember... Not a moderator here.... 

Ohhhh Seig... Can I try on  your moderator hat, just once?  Tess????  Anybody??????  Conatser!  Say something infliuential... Like ... like ... Give Dan an all expense paid trip to a locally owned and operated, qualitative Chinese Buffet!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 12, 2003)

You guys are killing me! :lol: Nope, Ed Parker wasn't wrong! Kenpo People are good people.


----------



## Michael Billings (Sep 12, 2003)

Haw-haw-haw!!!! ROFLMAO:rofl: 

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how to get this thread back on any topic.  I guess I just don't think Mr. Parker was ever wrong ... maybe a bit bewildered, like the rest of us, but not wrong.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 12, 2003)

Oh your *quite* right about my unfortunate mispelling of *quiet*, although I guess I'm not the only one that has caught the bad spelling virus.  Perhaps your words will be *influential* to those who read them



> Sigung86
> .....say something *infliuential*... Like ... like ... Give Dan an


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 12, 2003)

I have an idea, since the principle in question seems to have been the violation of the centerline, lets talk about that.  Here is a quote from another thread, made by a poster who teaches his students this way.  The name is not important, but please feel free to discuss whether you agree with this or not.



> Second, all the talk of "anatomically correct," etc., overlooks what I already wrote...if you step back into a neutral bow and do an inward block, the elbow still goes to center [the sternum], the fist to opposite shoulder, etc. etc....



Maybe that will help get everyone back on topic.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Oh your quite right about my unfortunate mispelling of quiet, although I guess I'm not the only one that has caught the bad spelling virus.  Perhaps your words will be influential to those who read them *



Yahoo... You are quick!  Wondered if anybody would see that.
:lol:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 12, 2003)

I ceramically find myself in otter aggregation with the inciteful vittles of this chronolagical dottore's pubdication, pinned en autre situatione pour un purpose differenttiale.

Et toi, ma cherie?


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I ceramically find myself in otter aggregation with the inciteful vittles of this chronolagical dottore's pubdication, pinned en autre situatione pour un purpose differenttiale.
> 
> Et toi, ma cherie? *




Doi toishte ichiqua!  Iki Masho, Mon amee. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dan Keshavarz

Sawat de Krup... Sabai de mai?


----------



## kenmpoka (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> *
> 
> Dan Keshavarz
> ...


I see, you've been learning Farsi. 
Good for you.

Damet Garm,

Peter.


----------



## CoolKempoDude (Sep 12, 2003)

please write everything in English since that is the ONLY language I understand.

thank you


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 13, 2003)

I must tell you, mein herr, that this IS English.

Pip-pip and cheerio,
Los Olividados


----------



## Seig (Sep 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sigung86 _
> * Give Dan an all expense paid trip to a locally owned and operated, qualitative Chinese Buffet!
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: *


I'd be happy to, provided it is local to me and dan Farmer is in the area and goes as my guest.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 13, 2003)

Ezvuhneetee pahzhulsta, Ya ne-Govoryou po-fransouskee, tolka po-angleskee e po-rooskee.  Mozhet Vweet Vam nado prekrateet vyectee deyetskova vzrosla.  Mozhet Vweet Vam nado tolka Govoreet <Kenpo> e necheevo.

Perhaps we should stay on topic, aye Tovarisch :shrug:


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _
> *Ezvuhneetee pahzhulsta, Ya ne-Govoryou po-fransouskee, tolka po-angleskee e po-rooskee.  Mozhet Vweet Vam nado prekrateet vyectee deyetskova vzrosla.  Mozhet Vweet Vam nado tolka Govoreet <Kenpo> e necheevo.
> 
> Perhaps we should stay on topic, aye Tovarisch :shrug: *



What the


----------



## Bill Lear (Sep 13, 2003)

> *Originally posted by kenpo_cory *
> 
> _What the  _



I know what you mean. Looks like they've had too much of the good stuff.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 13, 2003)

Mai-dai Poo chai! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## kenpo_cory (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bill Lear _
> *I know what you mean. Looks like they've had too much of the good stuff. *



LOL yeah, maybe if I was on the good stuff myself I could understand em.


----------



## Kenpo Yahoo (Sep 15, 2003)

> Second, all the talk of "anatomically correct," etc., overlooks what I already wrote...if you step back into a neutral bow and do an inward block, the elbow still goes to center [the sternum], the fist to opposite shoulder, etc. etc....



So this is how all you guys do your inward blocks for Delayed sword, Five Swords, etc.?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 15, 2003)

So instead of worrying about whether, "we guys," block correctly--we do, and you might want to look at Mr. Tatum's upcoming, "Tips," to see a reason why--maybe you could just explain what you think and we could discuss it?


----------



## kevin kilroe (Sep 17, 2003)

using the name bruce is very common when referring to bruce lee. it is almost public domain. even though i say "bruce lee" instead of "bruce", i seriously doubt anyone is putting forth the notion that they actually knew him when they refer to him as "bruce". its getting too heavy around here!


----------



## jeffkyle (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kevin kilroe _
> *using the name bruce is very common when referring to bruce lee. it is almost public domain. even though i say "bruce lee" instead of "bruce", i seriously doubt anyone is putting forth the notion that they actually knew him when they refer to him as "bruce". its getting too heavy around here! *




"Weight has nothing to do with it."  Doc Emmet Brown - Back to the Future.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *"Weight has nothing to do with it."  Doc Emmet Brown - Back to the Future. *



Also a quote from Roseanne Barr commenting on her crappy attitude and personality. :lol:


----------

