a question from an ignorant brother

[Doc]

Originally posted by yilisifu
Doc - you're probably older than me, but not by much.. However, I still don't see any connections between Taijichuan and Kenpo...

You know I owe a couple of apologies here. Part of that is for taking so long to get back because I’ve been very busy on my job. But, in several of the previous exchanges, one thing kept bugging me. “Why,” I asked myself, “do these people think I’m being secretive?” With the exception of personal information, I’m very open about the arts.

I mentioned this to our Dean of Instruction who reads some of the forums from time to time, and he came to read from another perspective. He’s great because he’s been my student for over a quarter of a century and is much a friend as student therefore he’s very honest with me about what he reads and manages to criticize me from time to time. He came back and said he couldn’t find the string at first, but after a search he found it. “No wonder they think you’re being secretive, you weren’t on the Kenpo Forum where everybody knows you.” He said.

Oops! I have no idea how I got here but it explains why some previous posters felt that way. Therefore I sincerely apologize.

Now for the questions at hand, I began studying with Ark Wong in the late fifties, and was exposed to a variety of Arts and instructors through my association with Ark Wong. Tiny Lefiti, Lau Bun (Lao Boon), James W. Woo, Jimmy H. Woo, to name a few. I began with (now) Grandmaster Douglas Wong (Ark Wong’s nephew), because we were schoolmates and old friends. Ed Parker studied with all of them and more in Southern and Northern California. Even Dan Inosanto studied with Ark Wong, along with Sal Esquivel, etc. Really a lot of well-known people.

In those days everyone who was smart (among Chinese practitioners) absorbed everything they could from everybody and each other. The question of different styles was never an issue and was answered by Grandmaster Wong, and was punctuated by Jimmy (W.) Woo and Lau Bun. “There are no real differences in styles in the Chinese Arts, there are only different methods of teaching.” This I heard over and over from all of them, including Ed Parker.

Thus Grandmaster Wong known for “Five Animal” also was well versed in Hung Gar, Choy Li Fut, Splashing Hands, and Taiji. Jimmy H. Woo was known for San Soo but actively taught Taiji, Hun Gar, etc, at one time even teaching in Ed Parker’s school. Doc-Fai Wong is known for Choi Li Fut, but teaches TaijiQuan (Tai Chi Chuan) as well. Lau Bun was known for Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar and Parker studied with him but was known for his own brand of Kenpo. Parker further blurred the lines by adopting elements from all in his own personal methodology. He too repeatedly said, “It’s all the same, ” it’s how you decide to get there.” This also influenced his creation of his conceptual commercial system which is very similar to Commercial San Soo, only more “tailored’ for the individual success over structure. All of them always used Taiji as a "base art" even though their specialty methodologies were from various sources. i was taught, right or wrong, "It's all Taiji."

What most are known for is whatever methodology they start with, and then as they grow they draw from everything in their life experiences they find valid. What Ed Parker ultimately did bore almost no relationship to his original teachings from Kwai Sun, but he always called whatever he did “Kenpo” even when he was doing Choy Li Fut.

What I do is closer to Ed Parker’s personal method utilizing mechanisms from his Chinese roots to make “Modern Kenpo” as effective sans the cultural baggage with the emphasis on long-term skills and effectiveness learning at a somewhat accelerated rate. A decent description of SubLevel Four Kenpo can be found in the latest issue (May) of Martial Art Magazine from CFW Publications, the Parent of Inside Kung Fu Magazine, whom I write for occasionally.

The short version is it is a multi-level Chinese “Kenpo” that concentrates on proper body mechanics creating internal energy, while teaching functional self techniques, that also on their own can stand as mini-Taiji forms and provides all of the benefits of Singular Execution Training. It’s method is unlike any Kenpo seen in any commercial interpretations of Ed Parker ‘s art and also includes Destructive Sequencing utilizing meridians from TCM, as well as control mechanisms from Chin-na, interpreted for modern integrated applications much as traditional methods.

Back to work and once again, my apologies.

 

[Matt Stone]

If you don't mind, I think I will attempt to contact Doug Wong and see if he calls what he does Taiji, and whether he teaches Taiji as a "base art" or holds any of the same theories you do... If you shared so much of the same training, I would expect much of what he says to be the same as you.

And just an off the cuff question - If you call it "SubLevel Four," why not just call it "Level Three?" Three is below four, right?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
If you don't mind, I think I will attempt to contact Doug Wong and see if he calls what he does Taiji, and whether he teaches Taiji as a "base art" or holds any of the same theories you do... If you shared so much of the same training, I would expect much of what he says to be the same as you.

And just an off the cuff question - If you call it "SubLevel Four," why not just call it "Level Three?" Three is below four, right?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Doug and I are contemporaries and he has his own art and took his own path. I simply told you what I was taught by a variety of instructors and those who influenced me who taught us both. He and I did not share training for the majority of our lives. I met Parker in 1963. What Doug calls what he does has no bearing on me or anyone else. He too has created his own style of "White Lotus" while still teaching Sil Lum as well.

You know you can have your own interpretation of your art and not have it related to anything else, if that is what you want. We simply disagree. You don't know what I have been doing for the last 47 years and I don't know you at all, so this "Kenpo/Taiji question will probably never be answered to your satisfaction.

Sublevel Four derives it's name from a defintion Ed Parker used to describe the 4 distances of combat. He believed at the closest distance (4) in his commercial art you should be able to manipulate your opponent by "Contact." The subcategory of that distance requires that you "Control" your opponent, thus it is a subcategory of distance four. Philosophically that is what I teach. You touch you control much like San Soo or even Taiji (as I know it).

Tell Doug and Carrie I said "Hi!"

 

[chufeng]

DOC,

“It’s all the same, ” it’s how you decide to get there.”

We said this very thing right up front...
You seem to want to differentiate what you do from the rest...
On the one hand you say it's the same, on the other, it's different.

I still don't see the TaiJiQuan connection ... other than all arts are one, after a time...

So enlighten us...
I believe you trained with the peoplke you claim to have trained with...I am not contending that point, just the connection to TaiJiQuan...


BTW to YiLiQuan1...Douglas Wong's phone number is (818) 993-9664.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[Matt Stone]

Never once did I say that things are not related. In fact, were you to review the conversation, I have said several times here and in other threads that ultimately All arts are One art...

Your incorret premise, however, was that kenpo and taijiquan were essentially one and the same. You implied thereby that kenpo includes all the same methods of instruction, postures, forms, etc., that taijiquan includes. This is patently incorrect.

Does kenpo routinely practice push hands? Static posture holding? Standing meditation? What about silk reeling power and fa jing? How about the theoretical basis of taiji? Does it form a fundamental core portion of kenpo theory? It was my understanding that Ed Parker refuted the existence of qi entirely... How then can what he created be essentially identical to an art whose basic concepts revolve around the concept?

You can name all the big names you want (fortunately most of them are deceased, thereby making contact with them to verify your version of events rather difficult), and cite all the years of training you want. 100 years of training incorrectly does not a master make, just a person well trained in incorrect theory and technique. I am not implying your technique is questionable, just your assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.

And once again, I state for the record, ultimately All are One.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Never once did I say that things are not related. In fact, were you to review the conversation, I have said several times here and in other threads that ultimately All arts are One art...

Your incorret premise, however, was that kenpo and taijiquan were essentially one and the same. You implied thereby that kenpo includes all the same methods of instruction, postures, forms, etc., that taijiquan includes. This is patently incorrect.

Does kenpo routinely practice push hands? Static posture holding? Standing meditation? What about silk reeling power and fa jing? How about the theoretical basis of taiji? Does it form a fundamental core portion of kenpo theory? It was my understanding that Ed Parker refuted the existence of qi entirely... How then can what he created be essentially identical to an art whose basic concepts revolve around the concept?

You can name all the big names you want (fortunately most of them are deceased, thereby making contact with them to verify your version of events rather difficult), and cite all the years of training you want. 100 years of training incorrectly does not a master make, just a person well trained in incorrect theory and technique. I am not implying your technique is questionable, just your assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.

And once again, I state for the record, ultimately All are One.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Yeah, I figured my years of experience wouldn't mean anything to you since I've been doing the art longer than you've been alive. Tell you what. I won't be an expert in Taiji if you stop thinking you're an expert in my Kenpo which you know nothing about. By the way for the record you are incorrect, Ed Parker believed in Chi/Qi and my Kenpo does have much of what you speak. But how would you know. You keep saying what it doesn't have I keep saying what I was taught. And I did learn a bit in all those years, and still going.

 

[Matt Stone]

Well, for so venerable and skilled as you claim you are, I have yet to hear/see/read any explanation on why you think your kenpo is the same as taijiquan. You have dropped names and tried to wow me with your years and years of training and the celebrities with whom you have hobnobbed... But when we bring it down to brass tacks, all you have accomplished is a lot of effort exerted and wasted toward convincing me of your impressiveness.

At the start of this discussion, we asked for explanations on what you thought made kenpo and taiji the same.

I'm still waiting...

But then, you only have little old me to concern yourself with, right? Nobody else has read this thread, or another one regarding this particular topic (and all the kenpo folks on that thread said there was no similarity between kenpo and taiji - go figure), so there is only somebody that hasn't been alive as long as you have been training, and who needs to explain to someone like that, right?

Have a nice week. I'm done with this. Maybe if you manage to come down from Olympus and explain to a mere mortal like myself what the basis for your claim is, then I'll revisit this thread. Until then, I remain unconvinced that your kenpo is somehow the same as taiji (beyond that cosmic, universality that I have all along admitted exists among all arts at a certain level of development). It was never my issue to prove your kenpo isn't the same, but it was all the while your issue to prove it was. You didn't, so my arguements rest.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Doc]

your problem is you want your answer your way. I answered but you ignored. No Problem. You twist my words, no problem. As usual another master under 40 years old who has his own style. Have a nice day.

 

[yilisifu]

No, the actual question was HOW kenpo and Taiji are the same. Your words haven't been twisted at all. You have provided information on your background, but the question remains unanswered except for your insistance that you trained under people who taught Taiji (amongst other things).

While it's nice that you were able to train under these people, it still fails to answer the question; HOW are kenpo and Taiji the same?

And no, Yilichuan 1 isn't someone who's started up his own system. He's my student.

And it's been a long time since I saw 40.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by yilisifu
No, the actual question was HOW kenpo and Taiji are the same. Your words haven't been twisted at all. You have provided information on your background, but the question remains unanswered except for your insistance that you trained under people who taught Taiji (amongst other things).

While it's nice that you were able to train under these people, it still fails to answer the question; HOW are kenpo and Taiji the same?

And no, Yilichuan 1 isn't someone who's started up his own system. He's my student.

And it's been a long time since I saw 40.

Perhaps you then should tell me why it isn't. I told you what I do generally and where to find more info. I can only tell you and others you have not seen SL-4 therefore you cannot be experts in it, anymore than I claim to be an expert in your taiji.

 

[mikkel2]

Having actually read through the thread, I must agree that Doc hasn't pointed how kenpo and taiji are identical, but only excelled in namedropping and refered to his many years of training - which doesn't prove anything ...

A car and a boat are both means of transportation, but that doesn't mean that they're not two very different things.

 

[Matt Stone]

Situation #1

Prosecutor: "Your honor, the People will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our client, Mr. Doe, is in fact innocent of the crime charged - murder."

Judge: "Go ahead, counselor."

Prosecutor: "Your honor, my client has known many people in his lifetime, has lived a good many years, is well known in his community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, has contributed to many activities in his lifetime, and can show that he has done many things more in his life than the Defense counsel cares to admit."

Judge: "Counselor, would you care to get on to exactly why your client is innocent, or do you plan on impressing the jury to death?"

Situation #2

Person A: "I state as a public fact my belief that I can fly."

Person B: "Prove it."

Person A: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known in my community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, have contributed to many activities in my lifetime, and can show with many names all the famous people I have met."

Person B: "So, you gonna show me you can fly, or what?"

Situation #3

Doc: "Kenpo and Taiji are the same."

Yiliquan1: "How?"

Doc: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known for so many things and can drop names of all the stars of MA that I have hobnobbed with."

Yiliquan1: "So, you gonna show me how kenpo and taiji are the same, or what?"

Sorry. I said I was through with this thread, but in a discussion at work about different court cases, this example of my lack of requirement to disprove Doc's contention, and the burden of proof being that of the person making the allegation, came to mine. I felt it needed to be driven home. Hope my position is clearer now to anyone reading this.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Situation #1

Prosecutor: "Your honor, the People will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our client, Mr. Doe, is in fact innocent of the crime charged - murder."

Judge: "Go ahead, counselor."

Prosecutor: "Your honor, my client has known many people in his lifetime, has lived a good many years, is well known in his community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, has contributed to many activities in his lifetime, and can show that he has done many things more in his life than the Defense counsel cares to admit."

Judge: "Counselor, would you care to get on to exactly why your client is innocent, or do you plan on impressing the jury to death?"

Situation #2

Person A: "I state as a public fact my belief that I can fly."

Person B: "Prove it."

Person A: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known in my community for maintaining an immaculate lawn, have contributed to many activities in my lifetime, and can show with many names all the famous people I have met."

Person B: "So, you gonna show me you can fly, or what?"

Situation #3

Doc: "Kenpo and Taiji are the same."

Yiliquan1: "How?"

Doc: "I have known many people in my lifetime, have lived longer than you, am well known for so many things and can drop names of all the stars of MA that I have hobnobbed with."

Yiliquan1: "So, you gonna show me how kenpo and taiji are the same, or what?"

Sorry. I said I was through with this thread, but in a discussion at work about different court cases, this example of my lack of requirement to disprove Doc's contention, and the burden of proof being that of the person making the allegation, came to mine. I felt it needed to be driven home. Hope my position is clearer now to anyone reading this.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Last time.

I told you what My Kenpo does of which I am an expert. I've told you where you can get more information if you desire. I've told you what I was taught.

Now if you want to investigate further and compare what I do to what you do (for which I am not an expert) than you can, and draw a conclusion for yourself and agree or not.

I do not pretend to be an expert of what YOU call taiji therefore making a point by point comparison of what I do not know would be pointless.

I will not do what you have chosen to do with a limited view of someones "Kenpo" and draw a conclussion there is no correlation. That is your position not mine, however you are entitled to it.

I been around long enough to know "style names" mean nothing compared to what is actually taught. Only YOU are qualified to make a comparison of what you do. I've only asked that you not judge my Kenpo by what you've seen of someone else.

I too am allowed to give and stand by presumptions and opinions of what I was taught, told and what I now teach. Of that I am an expert. No more, no less.

Clearly no matter what I would say in a point to point comparison could be wrong from your perspective. Your position is clear. As opposing professional experts with differences of opinion I suggest you either investigate further or agree to disagree.

I rest.

 

[Matt Stone]

I guess we have our answer then...

Y'know, usually in court, when the person making an allegation is either unable or unwilling to attempt to define and explain their allegations to the satisfaction of the court, the court usually finds that their allegations were false at the outset.

Lucky we're not in court, I suppose...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
I guess we have our answer then...

Y'know, usually in court, when the person making an allegation is either unable or unwilling to attempt to define and explain their allegations to the satisfaction of the court, the court usually finds that their allegations were false at the outset.

Lucky we're not in court, I suppose...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Funny counselor how you forget your own assertion for which you too failed to carry the burden of proof.

How about you list a point by point comparison of why you think Kenpo and Taiji are NOT alike.

Same thing. I take judicial notice that you are an expert in your field, and suggest you do the same for me. That being the case we simply disagree. However you may still make your comparison list should you choose to.

 

[yilisifu]

It is noteworthy to add that other kenpo practicioners have not agreed with Doc's assertion that kenpo and taiji are the same.

When confronted with strong evidence to the contrary, he has pointed to "names" with whom he has trained and explained that a special and rarely seen version of EPAK, SL-4, is allegedly the same as taiji.

No one else has had anything to say about this. I have known several kenpo stylists in my 45 yrs in martial arts and none of them, not a single one, ever made the assertion that kenpo and taiji are anything alike.

That's like saying that judo and wing chun are the same.

They're both martial arts and they do use some of the same fundamental principles (such as maintaining balance and so forth), but that's where the similarity ends. They are entirely different arts.

Ed Parker was a martial arts genius and a wonderful man. I don't know if he ever took up the study of taiji or not, but if he did, he may very well have added some of the basic principles of taiji to some areas of his kenpo system. That does not, however, indicate that the two arts are the same.

Aikido takes much of it's bokken technique from the Shinkage school which Uyeshiba studied. However, no one has ever claimed that aikido and Shinkage-ryu are the same.

Bagua utilizes many of the same principles as taiji but you will never hear a bagua stylist say that bagua and taiji are the same.

As a final comment, you state that you are not necessarily an expert of what Yiliquan 1 claims to be taiji; you are an expert of your kenpo (and I don't doubt that) and whatever YOU call taiji.

C'mon........I suppose one could turn around and call taekwondo "taiji" but that wouldn't make it true. What Yiliquan refers to as "taiji" is Yang's style, which is the most common form of taiji practiced worldwide. Others include Chen (the original version), Wu, Woo, Sun, and Hao.

If kenpo and taiji are the same, then it would follow that they should look very much alike, no? It wouldn't really matter whether or not I was an expert in kenpo; if I had studied taiji for any substantial length of time (which I have), then I should be able to do kenpo without much additional effort...shouldn't I? This would be a true statement if these two arts were the same.

However, anyone who watches taiji or studies it for even a short length of time and then observes kenpo will tell you that the two arts are not at all alike.
You state clearly that you have a great deal of experience in kenpo but I don't recall your saying that you have ever studied taiji at a taiji school. Yet, you come down on any taiji stylist who disagrees with your statement because they have never studied kenpo.


Your arguement just doesn't hold water.

 

[Doc]

If kenpo and taiji are the same, then it would follow that they should look very much alike, no?

I guess that would depend on whose Kenpo and whose taiji you're talkin about

However, anyone who watches taiji or studies it for even a short length of time and then observes kenpo will tell you that the two arts are not at all alike.

I wasn't aware you had observed a Sublevel Four kenpo class. If you haven't that is an assertion you may not make

Yet, you come down on any taiji stylist who disagrees with your statement because they have never studied kenpo.

That is absolutely incorrect. I didn't come down on anyone. I made a statement and indicated why I made the statement, and informed that SL-4 Kenpo is different from what some have seen called kenpo. When asked to draw a point by point comparison against what I don't know, I declined although I suggested where more information was available about what I teach.

Instead I suggested they draw a comparison based on what they know, the same as they asked of me.

Two experts with different opinions, neither knowing what the others does. I haven't seen their Taiji and they definitely haven't seen my Kenpo.

 

[Taiji fan]

this thread is getting really yawnsome and seems to have degenerated into the school yard stuff...but I am going to give it my tuppence worth anyway

Doc said in a very early post

Kenpo is very much Taiji Quon when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics enroute to applications

whats the argument?....what other proof do you need?.....it seems totally clear....the line that does it is...when taught from that perspective of proper body mechanics....so there is the comparison. what more do you want? :idunno:

 

[Matt Stone]

Here's a fun exercise. Please tell me what arts X and Y are.

Arts X and Y are very similar. They both stress stable stances, coordinated body mechanics that generate power, deflecting blocks and penetrating strikes and kicks. Joint locks, throws and weapons defenses are included in the curriculum, and though both arts come from separate locations, they enjoy some common cultural development.

Go ahead, figure out which arts X and Y are... Answers will be posted later.

Enjoy.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Here's a fun exercise. Please tell me what arts X and Y are.

Arts X and Y are very similar. They both stress stable stances, coordinated body mechanics that generate power, deflecting blocks and penetrating strikes and kicks. Joint locks, throws and weapons defenses are included in the curriculum, and though both arts come from separate locations, they enjoy some common cultural development.

Go ahead, figure out which arts X and Y are... Answers will be posted later.

Enjoy.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

X = Chinese & Y= Okinawan arts?