"By The Book"

[MJS]

Last night, I was reading thru some posts on another forum. I came across a discussion on forms. The poster stated that she was recently reviewing a form with a student, but this student had come from a different lineage, so there were slight differences in the way she was teaching and the way the student had learned it. She proceeded to ask questions on lineage, forms, etc. Another member made the comment to, 'teach it the book way.'

So, my question is...what is the book way? Considering that there are many variation, considering we have many lineages, is there a set way? I would imagine though, that if per se, someone came from Palanzo and went to Tatum, and there were slight differences (I don't know if there are or not, just using this as an example) that the student would made the necessary changes to suit the org. he/she is with now.

Of course, upon first reading, and maybe I just misread, but I almost got the impression that the person that mentioned doing it by the book, was hinting that his way was "The" way of doing the form.

Thoughts?

 

[michaeledward]

The problem is, that the 'Book' was never meant to be the teacher. The 'Book' was meant to be a reference to a quality teacher. Too often, too many people use the book as a substitute for the high quality teacher.

In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat.

On a personal level, I learned the Staff set. When I read the instructions in Rich Hale's copy of 'The Book', the movements I was doing, were sort of accurate to I learned, but not really. I recently spent several days reviewing the Staff set with Mr. Planas. And while he said that there were some "minor changes" that he wanted to see, he totally changed the set on me.

So, the point, for me at least, is that 'The Book' is insufficient. It may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

 

[JamesB]

In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat.

Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "a book", about Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?

 

[michaeledward]

Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "a book", about Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?

No.

 

[Blindside]

No.

So if Ed Parker performed or taught a form differently than "the book," who is incorrect?

 

[michaeledward]

So if Ed Parker performed or taught a form differently than "the book," who is incorrect?

Mr. Parker was a high quality martial artist.

However, there is a video floating about of Mr. Parker doing Short Form 3 that is absolutely horrible. If you find that clip, you will see that he leaves out several techniques from the form. If you learned the form from that performance, you would be incorrect.

The book is a supplement to a high quality teacher. Hopefully, the teacher understands how, and why, something is supposed to be executed.

Yes, even Ed Parker could do things wrong.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

'The Book' is whatever manual you have lying around for students and teachers to reference.

Nothing else matters. The specifics and minutia of your technique are largely unimportant. Kenpo isn't about rote memorization..it's about the intelligent application of principals.

Teaching Delayed Sword with a backfist rather than a chop at the end doesn't change the principals. Neither do small alterations of kata (or even large ones).

What does matter is that the entire teaching staff is united on what they consider the 'right' way to do a technique or form. Very few things are more frustrating to a student than learning version a, and have a teacher two days later say they're all wrong...it should be version b.

It's important to have 'the book' somewhere in your school. But it doesn't matter much who's book it is.

 

[JamesB]

No.

Why not? explain your position, if you can.

 

[MJS]

The problem is, that the 'Book' was never meant to be the teacher. The 'Book' was meant to be a reference to a quality teacher. Too often, too many people use the book as a substitute for the high quality teacher.

In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'. And he clearly tells us how the books get mangled when they reach the mat.

On a personal level, I learned the Staff set. When I read the instructions in Rich Hale's copy of 'The Book', the movements I was doing, were sort of accurate to I learned, but not really. I recently spent several days reviewing the Staff set with Mr. Planas. And while he said that there were some "minor changes" that he wanted to see, he totally changed the set on me.

So, the point, for me at least, is that 'The Book' is insufficient. It may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Yes, you're right. IIRC, Doc has said many times that things such as "Big Red" were not designed to be the final say.

 

[Doc]

Yes, you're right. IIRC, Doc has said many times that things such as "Big Red" were not designed to be the final say.

Yes sir, mostly because for those who have or have seen BIG RED, the first thing you notice is, it doesn't tell you HOW to do anything. That's what teachers are for. Mr. Parker was indeed a genius and drew upon his undersatnding of Comparitive Analysis to create everything logically. While the business plan was solid, its the teachers that provide the 'meat' to the 'bread' of the manual concepts.

The problem here is the business emphasized techniques because that is what 'sold' the art. Parker would rip off a technique spontaneously and people would go, WOW! But in the non commercial world the arts are driven by arguious basics and, what can be boring to beginners, repetitious drills. Teachers taught for retention.

So teachers either lost, or in later years, never had an understanding of basics because they weren't being taught by anyone, not even Parker generally. Everything is conceptually driven. The systems teachers are responsible for whatever it is, or isn't. So if the knowledge of execution is in the hands of its teachers, and they are. And the teachers never learned one way, and there is no 'book' that describes the 'how' of one way, than a suggestion to do it "by the book" is ludcrious.

Even the book with loose descriptions of 'what' to do, never addresses 'how' to do it, therefore it is all instructor interpretations. Artistically, no one is wrong because the system allows and encourages this free from approach for retention and quick satisfaction. The standards are conceptual, and so is the product grading on the 'curve.' Traditional arts don't do this. They set a standard, and instructors make sure everyone adheres to it if they want advancement.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Last night, I was reading thru some posts on another forum. I came across a discussion on forms. The poster stated that she was recently reviewing a form with a student, but this student had come from a different lineage, so there were slight differences in the way she was teaching and the way the student had learned it. She proceeded to ask questions on lineage, forms, etc. Another member made the comment to, 'teach it the book way.'

So, my question is...what is the book way? Considering that there are many variation, considering we have many lineages, is there a set way? I would imagine though, that if per se, someone came from Palanzo and went to Tatum, and there were slight differences (I don't know if there are or not, just using this as an example) that the student would made the necessary changes to suit the org. he/she is with now.

Of course, upon first reading, and maybe I just misread, but I almost got the impression that the person that mentioned doing it by the book, was hinting that his way was "The" way of doing the form.

Thoughts?

There are many different books which use language and connatations specific to the way of thinking of the individual authors; so, to say the differences are slight is a bit of an understatement.
Sean

 

[Ray]

'The Book' is whatever manual you have lying around for students and teachers to reference.
...
It's important to have 'the book' somewhere in your school. But it doesn't matter much who's book it is.

I think it is fun to visit other schools and see what they do.

 

[Doc]

I think it is fun to visit other schools and see what they do.

I do to, if nothing but to see how they interpret things and how they teach their interpretations.

 

[michaeledward]

In Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Huk Planas wrote "the book". The story of the book is told in 'The Journey'.

Would it be more accurate to say that Mr Planas wrote "a book", about Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate?

No.

Why not? explain your position, if you can.

I'll try. Although, I don't know that this is necessarily "my" position, as much as it is the collective history of the system many of us study. As I mentioned, this information is laid out in 'The Journey'.

Let's begin with your idea of "a book" and my idea of "the book".

As I understand it,

.... studying Kenpo in the late 60's and early 70's in California began in the Basics class. After demonstrating a sufficient measure of proficiency with the Basics, a student was invited into the Technique/Advance class.

During this time period, I'm certain the students were doing many things that have since become formalized in our system. But, the architecture of the system was, perhaps, a bit more loose.

Mr. Planas tells us that Mr. Parker was approached by a business person with a grand plan to spread the system into Canada (I'm doing this from memory in a hotel room - but it is laid out in The Journey). So, as part of the potential business opportunity and plan, Mr. Parker had Mr. Planas and (I think it was) Mr. Kelley spend a couple of months formalizing and writing out the system.

Before the plan could unfold, it fell apart. And then, it resurfaced under a different partner and program. And the books that we have, the books of the catalogued system of self-defense that I refer to as Ed Parker's American Kenpo were written by Mr. Planas.

Ed Parker's American Kenpo is a system of self-defense based on rules and principles. The rules and principles are taught in this system through techniques, forms and sets. Those techniques, forms and sets were catalogued in written manuals in the early 70's by Huk Planas and (I think) Tom Kelley.

I have no doubt by this time, Mr. Parker was able to practice self-defense, utilizing the underlying rules and principles that are the foundation of my system of self-defense in a 'gaseous state' or in a 'spontaneous' form. HE didn't really need 'the book' to practice the system. But the book that was written did describe his system.



Now, let me digress into your idea of 'Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate', as compared to my idea of 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo'.

This argument is perhaps made by someone other than me. I refer to the system I study, as 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo', which is documented in the book I described above.

As, I understand it ...

.... that system is what was taught in a group of Ed Parker IKKA schools in Southern California in the 70's and 80's. Mr. Planas tells me he travelled among a series of seven different schools throughout the week, teaching the instructors at those schools the "Ed Parker System".

Other people use different names to refer to different time periods in Mr. Parkers' career. On those topics, I have little knowlege and no opinion. Some people have modified and added to the foundation laid out in 'The Book' (please don't let this intimate that 'The Book' is 'The System'). Some have changed the name, others haven't.

The one thing that does seem apparent to me, from my personal experience, is that Mr. Planas is very much a stickler for the tradition. He was teaching the system to the owners of the Ed Parker schools in Southern California, every day. And he teaches that material, in the same way, today.

I don't know how Mr. Planas refers to the system. But, I do know he does not call it 'Huk Planas' Karate System'. He is teach what he learned from Ed Parker.

When I refer to the system of self-defense I study, I try to be careful to use the descriptors 'the system I study, which I call ... '. If someone has a reasonable explanation as to why I shouldn't refer to this system as 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo', I would be willing to listen, and to change my choice of name, if appropriate.


One last thought ... As Mr. Conaster spelled out in his autobiography in 'The Journey', all of the self-defense study we undertake, brings us to the point of being a 'paper tiger'; able to defend ourselves, but with enough skill and awareness to avoid ever needing to defend ourselves.

I continue to study in order to exercise my body, and my mind. I am confident that I have acquired skills more than sufficient to protect myself in any open hand conflict I may encounter. But, the process and the exercise is the reward and the challenge. Understanding how 'The System' is assembled, what it teaches us, and how to apply it, is ample material for a lifetime of study.

I hope this helps you understand my position.

Mike

 

[JamesB]

I hope this helps you understand my position.

Mike

Hi - it does help, thanks for taking the time to reply! I guess the reason I asked the question was because I was under the impression that 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo' was a continuing work-in-progress that was never completed (the widespread kenpo-karate system took over), so it was confusing to see you write that 'the' book had been written... but I got it now, thanks..

james

 

[michaeledward]

... I was under the impression that 'Ed Parker's American Kenpo' was a continuing work-in-progress that was never completed ...

That would not be my position.

I recently participated a thread discussion about the often used phrase "make kenpo your own". I posited that the idea of 'tailoring' kenpo was mis-used and misunderstood.

When I had to create by Black Belt Thesis Form, I had a discussion and private lesson about that with Huk. In that discussion, we reviewed that with human beings having two arms and two legs, there are only so many ways which it is feasible to block, strike, kick and punch. He also stressed that the "Techniques" in the Form should not be the 'Ed Parker American Kenpo' techniques. He said don't just string a handful of existing techniques together, and call that a form. The take away was that I was supposed to 'invent' new techniques for my Thesis.

With each new, invented technique, I ended up with the position, "Well, this technique is like Circling Destruction, BUT with an X instead of a Y". All of the techniques in my Thesis form could have easily been explained with as standard technique meeting the Equation Formulation. Even though I tried to create new techniques.

The one technique in my Thesis Form that was just a bit outside of the modified standard technique idea, was that way because I broke some of the rules. I created the technique knowing it was a violation of the rules ... because sometimes 'The System' teaches us what not to do.

So, James, I do not believe that "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" is a work in progress. I believe it is perhaps a living system. But, the foundation is the 'Rules and Principles of Motion - that everything has an opposite and a reverse'.

Unless someone creates a new 'Rule or Principle of Motion', I don't think the foundation we have is more than sufficient.

 

[MJS]

There are many different books which use language and connatations specific to the way of thinking of the individual authors; so, to say the differences are slight is a bit of an understatement.
Sean

True. As for the exact differences...I don't know, I wasnt there, nor do I know the people in question.

 

[MJS]

Yes sir, mostly because for those who have or have seen BIG RED, the first thing you notice is, it doesn't tell you HOW to do anything. That's what teachers are for. Mr. Parker was indeed a genius and drew upon his undersatnding of Comparitive Analysis to create everything logically. While the business plan was solid, its the teachers that provide the 'meat' to the 'bread' of the manual concepts.

The problem here is the business emphasized techniques because that is what 'sold' the art. Parker would rip off a technique spontaneously and people would go, WOW! But in the non commercial world the arts are driven by arguious basics and, what can be boring to beginners, repetitious drills. Teachers taught for retention.

So teachers either lost, or in later years, never had an understanding of basics because they weren't being taught by anyone, not even Parker generally. Everything is conceptually driven. The systems teachers are responsible for whatever it is, or isn't. So if the knowledge of execution is in the hands of its teachers, and they are. And the teachers never learned one way, and there is no 'book' that describes the 'how' of one way, than a suggestion to do it "by the book" is ludcrious.

Even the book with loose descriptions of 'what' to do, never addresses 'how' to do it, therefore it is all instructor interpretations. Artistically, no one is wrong because the system allows and encourages this free from approach for retention and quick satisfaction. The standards are conceptual, and so is the product grading on the 'curve.' Traditional arts don't do this. They set a standard, and instructors make sure everyone adheres to it if they want advancement.

Thanks for the reply Doc.

What always amazes me, and maybe I'll just never understand it, I don't know, but IMO, if someone was learning under a teacher, in this case, Mr. Parker, one would think that they'd want to learn the right way. Why would someone want to learn a system thats watered down, for lack of better words, and pass it along, rather than learn the 'full package?'

This reminds me of a thread I started a while ago about who is teaching the correct system?

I don't know...for myself, I like to go by the motto of, "Quality over Quantity." I'd rather have 30 solid students than 300 poor to average students.

 

[still learning]

Hello, This reminds me of the classic case, where you tell one person in line to repeat a one line story....by the end of the line the story has change.

In our Universal Kempo system...it is the same...our top (1st gen) Instrutors....many of them have small changes in variety of Kata's....yet they were train under the same "Professor". (Branches all over USA)

Many schools have the same Pinon Kata's.....yet is has it own varietions of the suppose to be the same thing!

Ed Parker systems is NO different...each Sensi...remembers things slightly differently as time goes by.....Even Mr Ed Parker cannot remember every single move in every Kata's...as time goes by in his life.

So we are told....if a higher ranking Instrutor (in our system)tells you to do it this way...than we follow his way. ( Usually at testing we review all the materials to be on the same line during testing).

Aloha, (as each of us past things down the line....a few things will change as time goes by......people forget or do not remember every detail....)

PS: We just have to except what we are taught from the present teacher!

 

[Doc]

So, James, I do not believe that "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" is a work in progress. I believe it is perhaps a living system. But, the foundation is the 'Rules and Principles of Motion - that everything has an opposite and a reverse'.

Unless someone creates a new 'Rule or Principle of Motion', I don't think the foundation we have is more than sufficient.

First there has to be a recognition of "what" we are speaking of. "American Kenpo" was a work in progress. Ed Parker never attached his name to it, therefore Ed Parker's American Kenpo" may be verbage that some choose to use, but it is incorrect, according to Parker. What we are speaking about that is "motion-based," is "Kenpo Karate," or "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate." He branded this aspect of his art(s) with his name, and no other because this was his commercial vehicle designed from the ground up for "selling" the art first around a sound business plan.

As far as the "rules and principles of motion," nothing could be more vague and open ended. This was intentional by Parker. It is so vague anyone can make anything of it. This is one of the foundations of Kenpo Karate.

It is important to make the distinction because the concept of "Kenpo Karate," which is finished, and its "system," because the system is its motion concept. Not to be confused with its techniques, forms, or sets, the number of each, and under what format they are taught.

American Kenpo is based on non-conceptual principles of anatomical movement and not abstract motion. The distinction between the two is enormous. American Kenpo was Mr. Parker's conversion of, and Americanization of the Chinese Arts he was learning, none of which made it into his commercial vehicle he called "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate."

The term "system" refers to the methodology by which the information is taught or passed on. American Kenpo was to be a strict system, while the "Kenpo Karate" system was abstract motion based, and completely open ended for interpretation from the instructor down to its lowest student, and was considered already "finished" by Ed Parker by Ed Parker at its inception. There may have been additional ideas of different things that could be done to convey the motion ideas, but these ideas are not the system.

In American Kenpo, the methods are the system. In Kenpo Karate the concepts are the system.