A question regarding kenpo quality

[thetruth]

Even though Mr Parker died 15 or so years ago and left no successor do you think that most of the high ranking people who have their own organisations now have continued to promote and teach Kenpo as Mr Parker would have liked?

As I mentioned in another post, I have very recently come back to Kenpo and my instructor is now under Mr Speakman. He wasn't with the AKKS when I was training and although there are variations in the emphasis of techniques, because there is such a detailed explanation of all of the principles the art is still the same. I haven't trained under any other organisations but it seems almost everybody is doing the right thing. Would this be a fair enough statement?

Cheers
Sam

 

[Flying Crane]

I cannot answer your question since I have never trained under any EPAK type instructors, nor have I ever met Mr. Parker. But I will suggest that with his passing, how he might have wished Kenpo to be done now falls into the realm of pure speculation since it is my understanding that he was contantly, and even quickly changing things. What he taught in the morning might be different from what he taught in the evening.

I will also suggest that how he might have wanted things to be done is now actually irrelevant, since he is no longer here to guide things. It now falls into the hands of those who learned from him, to do with it what they feel is best, whether or not they believe Mr. Parker would have approved. Hopefully they are doing what they feel will make their kenpo the best it can be, and this will vary from person to person based on what Mr. Parker taught them, and when they studied under Mr. Parker, as well as other outside influences and experiences.

 

[Rick Wade]

Here is what I have found to be true (to me). I personally have never been a fan of organizations. I am true to Kenpo and vice versa. With that being said i have recently joined an organization (UKF) after working out with a couple of the guys for about a year and finally meeting Mr. Pick in November and again in March. Not once did Mr. Pick or any of the other members ask me when I was going to join or anything about joining. The only thing they did was share our Kenpo. These guys are not concerned about money at all. I have been around most of the major organizations they all have their great angles and points to Kenpo. Make the best of it and you will always find information that can better your Kenpo.

V/R

Rick

 

[phlaw]

I agree with Rick. Politics + Martial Arts = Trouble

 

[Rich_Hale]

Sam,

The quality of Kenpo Instruction has always varied, even before Mr. Parker passed away. There are the likes of Ron Chapel, Huk Planas, Frank Trejo, Larry Tatum, Jeff Speakman, Lee Wedlake, Mohamad Tabatabai, Bryan Hawkins, Mike Pick, Paul Mills, Barbara Hale, John Sepulveda, and many more, that are all top notch instructors. Many of these instructors have gone on to form their own organizations, some teaching "Ed Parker's Kenpo" and other's teaching under their own name and banner.

Then there are . . . other instructors . . . of lesser character and quality who are teaching just as you would expect people of lesser character and quality to teach.

Bottom line is this: It doesn't really matter if your instructor studied with Mr. Parker directly, indirectly, or has never met the man. Mr. Parker knew he wouldn't live forever, that's why he put his mind to the grindstone and ground out his legacy into print.

If we have a real interest in the Ed Parker System of Kenpo, there is an abundance of information available for us study and learn from. We can start with the (5 volume) "Infinite Insights into Kenpo" series, or Mr. Parkers "Encyclopedia of Kenpo". Then we can read some of his earlier works like, "Secrets of Chinese Karate", or we can even go back to Mr. Parkers book "Kenpo Karate (Law of the fist and the empty hand)" (Copyright 1960).

And don’t forget Mr. Parker's Accumulative Journal, which Mr. Parker continually refined from its inception until he passed away in 1990. The Accumulative Journal has hundreds of pages of "How To" information covering basics, forms, sets, techniques, terminology, etc.

We should rely on our instructor to provide daily instruction and a studio to train in, but we shouldn't rely on him, or her, for the very essence of our knowledge. Even good, clean-living, church-going folks (who love their Pastor) should crack open The Good Book, now and then, for some personal study.

It's not the responsibility of our instructors to maintain, or uphold, the standard of Kenpo, it's our own responsibility to do this. Kenpo is no different than any other product on the market today. If we, as students, are willing to buy into a shoddy product, then there will always be someone, out there, willing to sell it to us. On the other hand, if we not only demand quality, but educate ourselves well enough to know quality when we see it, then it's a buyers market and we (the students) get what we want.

As for people saying the system of Ed Parker's Kenpo is always "changing", so why even bother with it trying to study it. I have written out three versions of the Yellow Belt Technique "Delayed Sword". The first version is from my original 1970's Accumulative Journal, the next two are more recent versions form the 80's and 90's respectively.

Yes, Mr. Parker passed away in 1990, but he had already all but completed the latest revision of his Accumulative Journal. He had given copies, of this most recent version, to a number of his students for purpose proofreading, editing and input. Mr. Parker's son, Edmund, later published this version in limited quantities.

I would not say our system is constantly "changing", as the below versions of Delayed Sword are very similar - in fact identical for the most part. What Mr. Parker did over the years was "refine" his work in the same way as any artist refines his work.

Many great painters have been known to paint right over the top of previous works, as their progressing talent and understanding of light, shadows and perspective made their previous work look dull and unimaginative, in their eyes.

Although history itself doesn't change, history books are constantly "changing" as new historical information is uncovered. And, science books written twenty years ago would be of little value if the authors and editors were not allowed to update them with the most recent scientific discoveries.

How many of us have rewritten a job resume, time and again, as our own knowledge and experience made the original outdated? Yesterday's resumes don't get today's jobs.

Read the below techniques, for yourself, and then tell me if you think Mr. Parker was constantly "changing" his system, or continually "refining" it.


1970s

1. With your feet together step back with your left foot into a right neutral bow as you execute a right inward block to the right inner wrist of opponent. Have your left hand guard near your solar plexus to act as a check if needed.

2. Immediately deliver (from your right neutral bow stance) a right front snap ball kick to opponent's groin.

3. As you plant your right foot toward 11 o'clock deliver a right outward handsword to the right side of opponent's neck.


1980s

1. With your feet together step back with your left foot toward 6:00 into a right neutral bow stance facing 12:00, while simultaneously executing a right inward block to the right inner wrist of your opponent. At the same time position your left hand at solar-plexus level as a precautionary check against further action.

2. Immediately slide your right foot back into a cat stance.

3. Without hesitation deliver a right front snap ball kick to your opponent’s groin.

4. Plant your right foot (back to its point of origin) into a right neutral bow, facing 12:00, as you strike with a right outward handsword to the right side of your opponent's neck. Immediately slide your right hand (after the strike) to the right wrist of your opponent as a precautionary check.


1990s

1. Standing naturally, step back with your left foot toward 6:00 into a right neutral bow stance facing 12:00, while simultaneously executing a right inward block to the right inner wrist of your opponent. At the same time position your left hand at solar-plexus level as a precautionary check against further action. (Your block should clear your opponent’s right arm, and expose the width of his body.)

2. Immediately slide your right foot back into a cat stance.

3. Without hesitation deliver a right front snap ball kick to your opponent’s groin. (Your opponent’s reaction should cause him to bend forward at the waist.)

4. Plant your right foot forward into a right neutral bow (facing 12:00) to check your opponent’s right knee, as you deliver a right outward handsword strike to the right side of your opponent’s neck. Remember to maintain the position of your left hand as a precautionary check. Immediately slide your right hand (after the strike) to the right wrist of your opponent as a precautionary check. (Your opponent’s response should cause him to fall to the ground.)

I have no doubt that after this is written and posted I too may like an opportunity clarify adn refine it.

 

[Ceicei]

Thank you, Mr. Hale. You have resolved a lot of the conflicts I thought I had. You also made clear the evolution of progression is a natural result of those who continue to seriously study.

- Ceicei

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Mr. Hale --

As always, glad to have your insights on board.

Best Regards,

Dave

 

[MJS]

Great post Mr. Hale!:asian:

After reading that, seeing how Mr. Parker obviously made changes for the better, I sit and wonder, If Parker made changes for the better, why do certain people that were mentioned in your post take heat for making changes of their own?

Mike

 

[Goldendragon7]

Greetings all,

Sorry I havn't been as active as I used to be, (just been too darn busy with life the last year and a half lol). Hopefully I'll be around more often but the remodel of my house and new training facility is under way and quite a project.

I do agree with Mr. Hale on many areas that he commented on.. here are a few of my comments/views. ........

The quality of Kenpo Instruction has always varied, even before Mr. Parker passed away.

This is a key statement..... Even while Mr. Parker was around..... the "quality" of his system was greatly varied (due to the human element for one and 2 - many had went off on their own thinking they "had enough of the stuff" to continue on their own). So many were doing "variations" and similar material.... but many lacked real application and understanding of the big picture and the 'finite' details that make the engine run smoothly. Not to mention that as we will go on and explain below.... Mr. Parker constantly was improving or at least making "clearer" (through better descriptions) what he was trying to relate.

There are the likes of Ron Chapel, Huk Planas, Frank Trejo, Larry Tatum, Jeff Speakman, Lee Wedlake, Mohamad Tabatabai, Bryan Hawkins, Mike Pick, Paul Mills, Barbara Hale, John Sepulveda, and many more, that are all top notch instructors. Many of these instructors have gone on to form their own organizations, some teaching "Ed Parker's Kenpo" and other's teaching under their own name and banner.

Sigh..... I'm soooo hurt you didn't mention me...... LOL (just kidding)
As stated, many "top notch instructors" have started their own organizations and are caring on the torch or banner and continuing the legacy of Ed Parker. Difference is... some are close to the tree..... some are not..... yet others are close but from a different perspective or view point. Each presents the art that they know from the personal strengths that that particular instructor posesses.

Then there are . . . other instructors . . . of lesser character and quality who are teaching just as you would expect people of lesser character and quality to teach.

Amen Amen I say to you...................

Bottom line is this: It doesn't really matter if your instructor studied with Mr. Parker directly, indirectly, or has never met the man. Mr. Parker knew he wouldn't live forever, that's why he put his mind to the grindstone and ground out his legacy into print.

Very true, but the problem here is there are so many variations and revisions of said printed material (and some that are printed were reprinted and revised not by Ed Parker but themselves and have altered the techniques to suit themselves {this makes it very confusing to the general public}) that many are following one of these 'variations' and thinking it to be EPAK not to mention that much of this material is hard to get for most.

If we have a real interest in the Ed Parker System of Kenpo, there is an abundance of information available for us study and learn from. We can start with the (5 volume) "Infinite Insights into Kenpo" series, or Mr. Parkers "Encyclopedia of Kenpo". Then we can read some of his earlier works like, "Secrets of Chinese Karate", or we can even go back to Mr. Parkers book "Kenpo Karate (Law of the fist and the empty hand)" (Copyright 1960).

And don’t forget Mr. Parker's Accumulative Journal, which Mr. Parker continually refined from its inception until he passed away in 1990. The Accumulative Journal has hundreds of pages of "How To" information covering basics, forms, sets, techniques, terminology, etc.

Yes, I agree. You must use all the material that has been published by Ed Parker himself as a base. The Infinite Insights series is Key as well as all the other books however they are sometimes hard to find and they hold the keys but do not explain the system in detail (hark! you need a good instructor that does have the material and was trained by Mr. Parker or one of his personal students).

We should rely on our instructor to provide daily instruction and a studio to train in, but we shouldn't rely on him, or her, for the very essence of our knowledge. Even good, clean-living, church-going folks (who love their Pastor) should crack open The Good Book, now and then, for some personal study.

True, true (but only if you have the material)

It's not the responsibility of our instructors to maintain, or uphold, the standard of Kenpo.

Well, I disagree with you a bit on this one. I believe it IS the responsibility of our instructors to teach quality material (if they know it). They are the 1st contact many rely on and trust that they are getting good material. Many do not know the difference "in the beginning" whether a product is good or not.

Kenpo is no different than any other product on the market today. If we, as students, are willing to buy into a shoddy product, then there will always be someone, out there, willing to sell it to us. On the other hand, if we not only demand quality, but educate ourselves well enough to know quality when we see it, then it's a buyers market and we (the students) get what we want.

I DO agree here...... always keep your eyes open and use logic and common sense to guide you!!!!!! Questions are good!

As for people saying the system of Ed Parker's Kenpo is always "changing", so why even bother with it trying to study it. I have written out three versions of the Yellow Belt Technique "Delayed Sword". The first version is from my original 1970's Accumulative Journal, the next two are more recent versions form the 80's and 90's respectively.

Yes, Mr. Parker passed away in 1990, but he had already all but completed the latest revision of his Accumulative Journal. He had given copies, of this most recent version, to a number of his students for purpose proofreading, editing and input. Mr. Parker's son, Edmund, later published this version in limited quantities.

I would not say our system is constantly "changing", as the below versions of Delayed Sword are very similar - in fact identical for the most part. What Mr. Parker did over the years was "refine" his work in the same way as any artist refines his work.

Many great painters have been known to paint right over the top of previous works, as their progressing talent and understanding of light, shadows and perspective made their previous work look dull and unimaginative, in their eyes.

Although history itself doesn't change, history books are constantly "changing" as new historical information is uncovered. And, science books written twenty years ago would be of little value if the authors and editors were not allowed to update them with the most recent scientific discoveries.

How many of us have rewritten a job resume, time and again, as our own knowledge and experience made the original outdated? Yesterday's resumes don't get today's jobs.

Read the below techniques, for yourself, and then tell me if you think Mr. Parker was constantly "changing" his system, or continually "refining" it.

1970s

1. With your feet together step back with your left foot into a right neutral bow as you execute a right inward block to the right inner wrist of opponent. Have your left hand guard near your solar plexus to act as a check if needed.

2. Immediately deliver (from your right neutral bow stance) a right front snap ball kick to opponent's groin.

3. As you plant your right foot toward 11 o'clock deliver a right outward handsword to the right side of opponent's neck.


1980s

1. With your feet together step back with your left foot toward 6:00 into a right neutral bow stance facing 12:00, while simultaneously executing a right inward block to the right inner wrist of your opponent. At the same time position your left hand at solar-plexus level as a precautionary check against further action.

2. Immediately slide your right foot back into a cat stance.

3. Without hesitation deliver a right front snap ball kick to your opponent’s groin.

4. Plant your right foot (back to its point of origin) into a right neutral bow, facing 12:00, as you strike with a right outward handsword to the right side of your opponent's neck. Immediately slide your right hand (after the strike) to the right wrist of your opponent as a precautionary check.


1990s

1. Standing naturally, step back with your left foot toward 6:00 into a right neutral bow stance facing 12:00, while simultaneously executing a right inward block to the right inner wrist of your opponent. At the same time position your left hand at solar-plexus level as a precautionary check against further action. (Your block should clear your opponent’s right arm, and expose the width of his body.)

2. Immediately slide your right foot back into a cat stance.

3. Without hesitation deliver a right front snap ball kick to your opponent’s groin. (Your opponent’s reaction should cause him to bend forward at the waist.)

4. Plant your right foot forward into a right neutral bow (facing 12:00) to check your opponent’s right knee, as you deliver a right outward handsword strike to the right side of your opponent’s neck. Remember to maintain the position of your left hand as a precautionary check. Immediately slide your right hand (after the strike) to the right wrist of your opponent as a precautionary check. (Your opponent’s response should cause him to fall to the ground.)

I have no doubt that after this is written and posted I too may like an opportunity clarify and refine it.

Great analogy and example........ I totally agree.

:asian:

 

[Kenpobuff]

Nice to have you back GD7! You wrote:

"Well, I disagree with you a bit on this one. I believe it IS the responsibility of our instructors to teach quality material (if they know it). They are the 1st contact many rely on and trust that they are getting good material. Many do not know the difference "in the beginning" whether a product is good or not."

I have been a victim of not knowing better when I first started. My instructor teaches what I think is good Kenpo and when Kenpo seniors have asked me who I study with I get a less than warm response. When I ask for specifics I get a PC answer, which I think is expected of these individuals with good character and morals not to speak poorly of a fellow senior. So I am left with continuing my study without good honest feedback and no real reason to study with another organization. In order to evaluate my instruction on my own I am finding myself going to tournaments and seminars and seeing what else is out there. To date, despite the PC responses regarding my instructor, I think the proof is in the results and that of fellow students. Not sure what version I am getting, the 70s or 80s, lol.

For those in the same situation ask good questions, read good material, and evaluate the results for yourself. If it is working for you then make it work for you.

 

[Flying Crane]

Great post Mr. Hale!:asian:

After reading that, seeing how Mr. Parker obviously made changes for the better, I sit and wonder, If Parker made changes for the better, why do certain people that were mentioned in your post take heat for making changes of their own?

Mike

I am sure someone like Doc could give more insight on this, but I suspect that Mr. Parker took a good deal of heat in various circles, for the changes that he made.

How does one determine if he is qualified and knowledgeable enough to make changes? I suppose if you see something in the material that you feel is problematic, and you can't find anyone who can help you understand it in a way that makes sense to you, and you feel you have a solution to the problem, then you make the changes. Of course some people will criticize what you are doing. You just gotta be thick-skinned enough to not let the heat get to ya.

Not everyone is a Martial Genius. While I might make one change, someone else might make a different and better change for the same problem. But if I don't know that person and cannot benefit from his knowledge, I am stuck with my own insights and the decisions that I make. While my solution may not be perfect, if it is better than the original, then it is improved. Once again, when I say "better", I mean better for yourself and your own understanding. It may not be useful to others, but if it works for you, that is what matters. My feeling is that recognizing a problem and being willing to make your best effort to fix it rather than just accept it and not try to change it, is a good proactive position to take.

 

[Rich_Hale]

Dear Dennis,

Of course you know I meant no disrespect in not mentioning your name among my “very” short list of “top notch” instructors. As I was compiling the list, and remembered to mention my ex-wife, I figured I was safe.

And when I said it isn’t the instructor’s responsibility to maintain, or uphold, the standard of Kenpo. I was writing from “student” perspective and trying to establish the concept of “student-beware” to our readers. On the other hand, as a teacher of Kenpo, and looking at it from a teachers perspective – I agree with you wholeheartedly.

By the way, I’ll be in Scottsdale later this month. I’ll be sure to stop by and say hello.


MJS,

I hear what you’re saying, but a question as simple as this, can sometimes require fairly lengthy answers, I hope you, and our other members, don’t mind.

I will first assume that you are referring to these changes that certain people are making are, in fact, good and well though-out changes. I’m sure the person making the change thinks it’s a good change, as I don’t expect anybody is going to purposely change a technique, or form, to make it less effective. But on the other hand decisions and changes I made 20 and 30 years ago, that looked good to me at the time, don’t necessarily stand up all that well today.

I may not be better than, or as good as, anyone else, but I’m definitely better than I was 30 years ago, so my own experience has taught me to be concerned with the process for, and the criteria used, when changing a technique/form, etc.

Take for example the side kick used in second set of moves in Long Form 2. Mr. Parker taught this move as a “Jab” with the foot. The movement parallels, simultaneously, with the jabbing fist. Many people have changed this little kick into a full-blown side kick, and for some, the higher the better.

So let’s go back to the criteria I used, when I first wanted to change this move from what Mr. Parker created to something I wanted.

Here is my own reason for “wanting” to change that particular move, 30 years ago: I felt silly doing a little kick like that, what if someone saw me kicking only inches off the ground? They would think I couldn’t kick any higher than that, and (at the time) I could kick straight up. (Not a good reason to me today, but at the time I didn’t know why the form called for a low kick, so for me, it was a good reason at the time.)

But if I were to have changed that move in the form, do you think I would have told anyone my real reason for doing it. Do you think I would have said something like, “Well class, I changed the side kick, in Long 2, from a low jab to a high snap, because I don’t actually know what I’m supposed to doing in the first place and secondly, I really don’t want to take the time to find out, because I would rather do a more cool looking kick anyway.” This would not have been a very good reason to make a change.

On the other hand, I once had a buddy tell me he changed the jab kick to a high side thrust kick, because he competed in open karate tournaments and low kicks “did not” win trophies at open tournaments.

In my opinion, that’s still not a valid reason to change the form, but I did respect the criteria he used in his decision making process, more than my own.

So what criteria should we use for making changes to Ed Parker’s Kenpo? First of all if we’re going to call it “Ed Parker’s Kenpo” then changes of any kind should be far and few between.

If on the other hand, someone decides to call their art, “(Your Name Here) Kenpo”, then it’s up to (Your Name Here) to make any changes they want. That way they aren’t going to either polish, or tarnish, Mr. Parker’s name in the process. It will be they, and not Mr. Parker, who will, eventually, be judged by the quality of their Kenpo system, and any changes they make to it.

Aside from this, assuming we are not changing the name to “Your Name Here”, my criteria for making changes is fairly simple.

For example: Let’s say I would like to change the middle knuckle fist, in Parting Wings, to a vertical punch. Here is my process for deciding if I can justify the change. In this (and every) scenario I play both the role of myself and Mr. Parker.

Mr. Hale: I would like to make a change to one of “your” self-defense techniques.

Mr. Parker: What would you like to change?

Mr. Hale: The middle-knuckle punch in Parting Wings.

Mr. Parker: What do I want to change it to?

Mr. Hale: A vertical punch.

Mr. Parker: Why do you want to make this change?

Mr. Hale: Because most people (me included) seldom condition their middle knuckle by striking (firm) targets with a middle-knuckle fist. When performing this technique “full power” against a training partner, wearing a chest protector, I and my students all pulled our middle-knuckle punches, to keep form injuring ourselves.

Mr. Parker: So, due to inadequate training by you, and your students, you think I should change this move and deprive my more dedicated and physically capable students from being exposed to this particular natural weapon?

Mr. Hale: Well . . . no . . . I just . . .

Mr. Parker: Why don’t you do this, when teaching Parting Wings to your students? Teach them how the technique is done, and then tell them how you do it. Then explain the pros and cons of both applications, letting your students choose which method they prefer – without depriving them of the same opportunity of choice, that I have given to you.

But, that’s such a simple example, so let’s do one more.

Mr. Hale: Good afternoon Mr. Parker, I would like to change Thrusting Salute to include variations B and C: “A” being your original, out of the book technique, and B and C being to variations for when your opponent is too close to you to execute a front kick after the left downward block.

Mr. Parker: Good afternoon Rich Hale, and what would these variations you call “Variation B and Variation C” be?

Mr. Hale: The first variation would be to shuffle backward with the downward block, creating the space needed to deliver the kick, and the second variation would be to step back into a neutral bow, just like the in the book, but then deliver a right knee to the groin instead of full length kick.

Mr. Parker: What is wrong with my original technique where you first step back into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a left downward block to your opponent’s right kicking leg, then immediately following up with a right kick to your opponent’s groin?

Mr. Hale: There never seems to be enough room to deliver my kick to his groin, after I have blocked his kick.

Mr. Parker: How do interpret the term “immediately”?

Mr. Hale: To do something right after you do something else.

Mr. Parker: When you walk, do you pause between steps?

Mr. Hale: No . . .

Mr. Parker: So, you would say that when you walk you are moving one foot “immediately” after the other?

Mr. Hale: Yes . . .

Mr. Parker: Have you ever stepped on a nail?

Mr. Hale: Yes, actually I have?

Mr. Parker: Did you move your foot “immediately?

Mr. Hale: Yes I did!

Mr. Parker: More “immediately” than how “immediately” you do when you are walking?

Mr. Hale: Yes, a lot more immediately!

Mr. Parker: So what if you were to move just as “immediately” after you have executed your downward block in Thrusting Salute. Do you think that your kick may, in fact, reach your opponent’s groin, before his body comes too close to your own body, to execute a proper kick?

Mr. Parker: Furthermore, do you think that if you were able to kick his groin so “immediately” that your kick made contact with his groin before his right foot has a chance to land, thus taking advantage of his forward momentum, while utilizing the principles of borrowed force, opposing forces, and marriage of gravity - in order to maximize the impact of your kick to your opponent’s groin?

Mr. Parker: Next time you practice Thrusting Salute, I want you to imagine that when you step back into your left neutral bow, while executing a left downward block to the inside of your opponent’s right kicking leg, that you have stepped onto an “instantaneously activated” land mine, that “immediately” blows your right foot forward into your opponent’s groin. That should give you plenty of time and space to deliver your kick, and eliminate the need for variations B and C.

This is not to say I don’t make changes to our techniques – I do.

For example, when doing Shield and Sword I don’t deliver a right roundhouse kick to my opponent’s right kidney as the final strike in the purple belt version of the technique.

Due to training, most martial artists chamber their right fist when executing a left step through punch, so when my partners attack me for this technique, there is often a very nasty (hidden from view) elbow awaiting the arrival of my right (kicking) foot.

Now in the past, I simply kicked them in the back of the head, now days I kick their left leg with a right, downward-looping roundhouse kick.

Criteria for the original change: Pain

Criteria for the more recent change: Old Age

And if Mr. Parker were to say to me, “So, due to your inability to deliver a properly aimed right roundhouse kick to the kidney, you would deprive your students of this target?”

I would say, “No sir, I teach my students that the technique calls for a right kick to the kidney, but due to my own inability to strike the proper target without maiming myself, I have chosen to alter the target . . . just as you have allowed us to do under the principal of “Compensating”, in which you state: To move in such a manner that room for error, or adjustment (on the part of the deliverer) is allowed.” Then I would smile at him and hope for the best.

If we were all to use our best criteria as a basis of making changes and then (mentally) run the idea by Mr. Parker, I think fewer and better changes would be made.

In the case where changes are made, I only suggest that we not carve all these changes into stone. The changes we make today, and the reasons for them, may not look the same, ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.

 

[lenatoi]

I understand that you have compensated for different things in sheild and sword. But, do you not still strike the kidney whith the same angle of motion that you used with your kick? As I see it, you're not exactly changing the technique, you're changing the way you do it. Does that make sense?
I, of course, aggree that any changes made should not be "carved in stone," but the reasons these changes were made should always be remembered.

 

[Rich_Hale]

lenatoi,

I could say I only "altered" the technique, but altering, refining, and changing are really all kind of the same thing. What I did works for me, but still dosen't necessarily make it right.

I do, very much agree, with your statement that if we change something we should always "try" to remember why we did so.

That is a great point.

Thanks,

 

[Jonathan Randall]

lenatoi,

I could say I only "altered" the technique, but altering, refining, and changing are really all kind of the same thing. What I did works for me, but still dosen't necessarily make it right.

I do, very much agree, with your statement that if we change something we should always "try" to remember why we did so.

That is a great point.

Thanks,

Very informative posts, Mr. Hale. It's great to have you on this board. :asian:

 

[MJS]

Mr. Hale-

Once again, I'd like to take the time to Thank You, for a very informative reply!:asian: Your post does make alot of sense and it has a similarity to conversations I've had with a certain EPAK instructor.

Now, this question is not at all meant to slam the person I'm about to mention, as I've never met the man, and have only seen him move on video. I guess where I was going with my post was, looking at Mr. Paul Mills, it seems like he a) has made quite a few changes to the art and b) takes alot of heat for it. That being said, and after reading your post, would he fall into the category of depriving people of the way the technique was really done?

Now, I know that when questions like this are asked, people tend to say, "Why don't you call Mr. Mills yourself and ask him personally?" Not saying that this is what you may/may not say, but I'm simply looking for some positive feedback. You've obviously been around the art many, many years longer than I, so I look forward to hearing the thoughts on someone who was there, training with Parker.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

lenatoi,

I could say I only "altered" the technique, but altering, refining, and changing are really all kind of the same thing. What I did works for me, but still dosen't necessarily make it right.

I would suggest that neither does it make it wrong. If it works better for you, then for you, it is right.

 

[Doc]

I am sure someone like Doc could give more insight on this, but I suspect that Mr. Parker took a good deal of heat in various circles, for the changes that he made.

How does one determine if he is qualified and knowledgeable enough to make changes? I suppose if you see something in the material that you feel is problematic, and you can't find anyone who can help you understand it in a way that makes sense to you, and you feel you have a solution to the problem, then you make the changes. Of course some people will criticize what you are doing. You just gotta be thick-skinned enough to not let the heat get to ya.

Not everyone is a Martial Genius. While I might make one change, someone else might make a different and better change for the same problem. But if I don't know that person and cannot benefit from his knowledge, I am stuck with my own insights and the decisions that I make. While my solution may not be perfect, if it is better than the original, then it is improved. Once again, when I say "better", I mean better for yourself and your own understanding. It may not be useful to others, but if it works for you, that is what matters. My feeling is that recognizing a problem and being willing to make your best effort to fix it rather than just accept it and not try to change it, is a good proactive position to take.

You have expressed very well Ed Parker's position on his commercial product. The focus was on the students relationship to the material and not the material itself. Students were allowed and encouraged to take responsibility for their training and study. Instructors were only 'guides' who were learning themselves. If the instructors way didn't work for you, then find a way that does. Parker called it 'tailoring.'

 

[Doc]

I would suggest that neither does it make it wrong. If it works better for you, then for you, it is right.

And I would only add sir, that if immediately effectiveness is your goal, than there is nothing 'wrong' with it as said. Only if you have loftier goals might that change, so the differences are philosophical and goal based.

 

[Rich_Hale]

Mr. Paul Mills, it seems like he a has made quite a few changes to the art and b) takes alot of heat for it. That being said, and after reading your post, would he fall into the category of depriving people of the way the technique was really done?

Mike

Mike,

The below information was taken directly from Mr. Mills web site. http://www.akki.com

To me, he is clearly giving credit where credit is due (to Mr. Parker), and seems willing to let his ideas stand on their own during the test of time.

I will also say this. Mr. Parker spoke very highly of Paul Mills. He did not speak highly of everyone who he provided lessons to. Not that he spoke ill of anyone, but if he liked someone and he approved of their art, he would say so.

In direct answer to your question, I would say Mr. Mills is not depriving anyone of Ed Parker's Kenpo, because he makes no claims to be teaching Ed Parker's Kenpo. He only states that his own art of Kenpo is based on Mr. Parker's Kenpo.

Welcome to the ​

American Kenpo Karate International Association ​

The American Kenpo Karate International (A.K.K.I.) is headed by Mr. Paul Mills. The schools and clubs of the A.K.K.I. have very skillful and knowledgeable instructors that teach the art as outlined by Mr. Mills. The A.K.K.I. has Ed Parker's Kenpo System at it's base, but has expanded the curriculum to include many new empty hand, stand up grappling, ground fighting, knife (single & double) and stick (single & double) material. To learn more about what the A.K.K.I. is all about read the A.K.K.I.'s Mission Statement.
One of the biggest differences in the way people execute their actions in the A.K.K.I., when compared to other associations and groups, is the use of the master key "Rhythmic Timing Patterns". All of the updates and new material in the A.K.K.I. include the use of these timing patterns. They help the practitioner move with explosive and powerful action. The study of the rhythmic timing patterns are at the base of the Paul Mills Kenpo style. All of the new A.K.K.I. curriculum also follows Mr. Mills philosophy that "Structure Governs Function".
This updated material includes progressive one and two man interactive training drills, techniques, forms, sets and freestyle. For example: Mr. Mills has consolidated short and long forms 1-3 into "Form1", "Form 2" and "Form 3" and then expanded the original platforms to include new ideas and curriculum not currently being used in any other association. There are different levels to each form - standard and black belt versions. This is so that as skill and proficiency increase; there are more ideas of self defense to learn and explore. Part of the advanced versions include filling the gaps, more ideas on expanding into the gaseous state, and exploring rhythmic timing patterns not previously addressed.


​

A sample of the new empty hand techniques include; "Divided Fury", "Darting Viper" and "Rising Thunder". New knife techniques include "Swirling Lance" (armed vs. armed) and "Intercepting Lance" (empty hand vs. armed). Club techniques include "Whipping Tempest" (armed vs. armed - offensive), "Colliding Storm" (armed vs. armed - defensive) and "Eye of the Storm" (empty hand vs. armed). These are but just a few of the benefits of membership in this association. These changes and updates have made the A.K.K.I. brand of American Kenpo a powerful and modern system of self-defense to learn and study.



​