Changes in techniques over the years

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

This is a question for all the Seniors (esp. Mssr's White, Chapel, and Conatser). There are certain "signature techniques" in/from kenpo that seem to be held on to even in distant kenpo seperatist systems. That is, SDT's like Five Swords and Thundering Hammers will crop up in the requirements of pretty much every kenpo splinter out there, but with subtle differences (i.e., Five Swords shows up in TAI as Daggar Set; Lone & Twin Kimono are merged in UCKJ into "Breaking the Bridge"; Thundering Hammers seems to keep it's name, but look a bit different where ever it shows; etc.).

My question(s) is 3-fold:

1. How much do the differences represent a historic marking of where kenpo was at, at the time of seperation (i.e., different ways of doing seven/five swords during different "2.3" versions of kenpo...may give clue to timeframe of splinter teachers' seperation from the CK/AK pack).

2. What have the rationale's been behind changes in the "signature techniques" that you've been exposed to during your journey's? Specifically, do you recall what was "broke" about an old version of an SDT that called for it to be "fixed"? (I'm throwing these in quotes because I don't suspect things were ever truly static, but merely variant explorations of ideas and principles demonstrated in/by a given tech.)

3. I've seen some SDT's revisited at multiple levels, with more in-depth explorations of possibilities within the vocabulary of motion and it's expressions (i.e., multiple 5-swords seminars, each taking it to a new level with incrementally 'advanced' information). I know some Prof's opting for 16 method even have in their cirriculums planned revisitations of earlier techs at different levels in order to extract more and expand more on the ideas and options in the tech. Is there a written resource, or constant standard, as to what each technique presents and looks like in, say, advanced shorthand? Are most or all of the Seniors aware of pretty much the same advanced-level shorthand variations/expansions on the SDT's?

(Note: The 3rd question relates to the 1st in regards to determining if it's possible to discern where a splinter teacher was in their kenpo knowledge development prior to leaving Mr. Parkers fold, via the depth with which they are able to continue exploring a given technique).

Best Regards,

Dave Crouch, DC

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

*chirp-chirp...chirp-chirp*

 

[Goldendragon7]

This is a question for all the Seniors (esp. Mssr's White, Chapel, and Conatser). There are certain "signature techniques" in/from kenpo that seem to be held on to even in distant kenpo seperatist systems. That is, SDT's like Five Swords and Thundering Hammers will crop up in the requirements of pretty much every kenpo splinter out there, but with subtle differences (i.e., Five Swords shows up in TAI as Dagger Set; Lone & Twin Kimono are merged in UCKJ into "Breaking the Bridge"; Thundering Hammers seems to keep it's name, but look a bit different where ever it shows; etc.).

My question(s) is 3-fold:

1. How much do the differences represent a historic marking of where kenpo was at, at the time of separation (i.e., different ways of doing seven/five swords during different "2.3" versions of kenpo...may give clue to timeframe of splinter teachers' separation from the CK/AK pack).

2. What have the rationale's been behind changes in the "signature techniques" that you've been exposed to during your journey's? Specifically, do you recall what was "broke" about an old version of an SDT that called for it to be "fixed"? (I'm throwing these in quotes because I don't suspect things were ever truly static, but merely variant explorations of ideas and principles demonstrated in/by a given tech.)

3. I've seen some SDT's revisited at multiple levels, with more in-depth explorations of possibilities within the vocabulary of motion and it's expressions (i.e., multiple 5-swords seminars, each taking it to a new level with incrementally 'advanced' information). I know some Prof's opting for 16 method even have in their curriculums planned revisitations of earlier techs at different levels in order to extract more and expand more on the ideas and options in the tech. Is there a written resource, or constant standard, as to what each technique presents and looks like in, say, advanced shorthand? Are most or all of the Seniors aware of pretty much the same advanced-level shorthand variations/expansions on the SDT's?

(Note: The 3rd question relates to the 1st in regards to determining if it's possible to discern where a splinter teacher was in their kenpo knowledge development prior to leaving Mr. Parkers fold, via the depth with which they are able to continue exploring a given technique).
Best Regards, Dave Crouch, DC

Sorry for not responding sooner but I was in hopes of others contributing to the section as well as myself.

1st Question......

1. How much do the differences represent a historic marking of where kenpo was at, at the time of separation (i.e., different ways of doing seven/five swords during different "2.3" versions of kenpo...may give clue to time-frame of splinter teachers' separation from the CK/AK pack).

My view is that the individual technique differences have little to do with historic "marking" of the techniques as pertained to "separation" of several of the break-away systems. Yet, in hindsight, it "may" have more to do with the "marking" of precisely when certain realizations or discoveries came to Mr. Parker. He always taught numerous "possibilities or variable expansions".


2nd Question......

2. What have the rationale's been behind changes in the "signature techniques" that you've been exposed to during your journey's? Specifically, do you recall what was "broke" about an old version of an SDT that called for it to be "fixed"? (I'm throwing these in quotes because I don't suspect things were ever truly static, but merely variant explorations of ideas and principles demonstrated in/by a given tech.)

Well, this is an easy question to answer. As Mr. Parker evolved and continually taught or "spit shined" (as he would often say) his system to his students (either publicly in Seminars or privately in his house, airplane, airport, restaurant etc. LOL), he would always look for cleaner or better ways of executing the movements {techniques}. To the credit of many of his personal Black Belt Students, who would question, research and eventually offer debate over certain aspects of any given technique... if the discussion resulted in LOGICAL or improved strategies or ideas..... he would "ponder" the material and if it had merit... would on occasion adjust it. Thus a slightly different version of a technique.

As an example...... the first Yellow Belt Technique "Delayed Sword", started with your left hand pinning the opponents right hand as you executed the right inward strike to the opponents arm, then followed by a right front ball kick to the groin, then replant and deliver a right outward handsword to the opponent's right side of his neck. This was the "initial" way to perform the technique that I originally learned. It was later "adjusted" in his most recent updating of his AC [Accumulative Journal] to alter or actually delete the first PIN with your left hand, and then changed the maneuver to become a Positional Check under the opponents grab as executed the rest of the technique the same.

The reason for this update, change, alteration etc. etc., was... since this is the YELLOW BELT, he didn't want the student (in the ideal phase) to possibly have to deal with the opponent still holding on to your lapel and thus having to need to do additional movements to dislodge the initial grab!

Another adjustment was the realization of numerous one-armed techniques developed in the early days. Mr. Parker moved on and updated much more duality of action with a new emphasis on the principle of "WITH" during the later technique updates and versions which involved both arms and legs during the technique which were noticeably missing from earlier versions.

This is the type of reasoning that went on from technique to technique through the system. The earlier methods are not wrong... but just additional versions compared to his new "ideal" phase.


3rd Question......

3. I've seen some SDT's revisited at multiple levels, with more in-depth explorations of possibilities within the vocabulary of motion and it's expressions (i.e., multiple 5-swords seminars, each taking it to a new level with incrementally 'advanced' information). I know some Prof's opting for 16 method even have in their curriculums planned revisitations of earlier techs at different levels in order to extract more and expand more on the ideas and options in the tech.

Is there a written resource, or constant standard, as to what each technique presents and looks like in, say, advanced shorthand? Are most or all of the Seniors aware of pretty much the same advanced-level shorthand variations/expansions on the SDT's?

(Note: The 3rd question relates to the 1st in regards to determining if it's possible to discern where a splinter teacher was in their kenpo knowledge development prior to leaving Mr. Parkers fold, via the depth with which they are able to continue exploring a given technique).
Best Regards, Dave Crouch, DC

Good Question, My opinion is this,..... (responding to your bold type question), No there is not a constant or standard that all instructors have had access to {this will answer many questions I'm sure}. There were only a few that were closely involved with Mr. Parker at the time of his death that were working on exactly what you are speaking of. He was in process of updating his "belt manuals" as well as in process of a fairly large video series on the system (of which he only released the first 2). Had he been able to finish this series..... the world would be a much different place today.

TODAY, you the student are at the mercy of all the instructors out there and YOU must evaluate the quality of what each instructor teaches (and I might add that each Kenpo Instructor that I know has much good to teach but many are specialists in certain areas and those areas do not necessarily match each of the students needs). Difficult..... yes to say the least but true. My advice is to "interview" the person you are about to study with and do your research and find out if what he/she has is what you want or need to assist you in your Journey thru Kenpo. Those that don't want to answer your questions, or give you the runaround or beat around the bush may need to be put lower down on your priority list.

Get all the answers to your questions and find someone you like and wish to spend time with (and that will spend the time needed with YOU) that is also concerned with your PROGRESS in Ed Parker's American Kenpo.

:asian:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Thank you for your informative, and in some ways cryptic, reply. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during some of the spit-shine discussions/debates; I suspect the reasoning process was as - if not more - educationally informative than the finished product.

D.

 

[Doc]

My question(s) is 3-fold:

1. How much do the differences represent a historic marking of where Kenpo was at, at the time of separation (i.e., different ways of doing seven/five swords during different "2.3" versions of Kenpo...may give clue to timeframe of splinter teachers' separation from the CK/AK pack).

An excellent question. As much of a teacher’s work represents his own interpretation of what he was taught, the larger picture is “when” he was taught initially from which he draws a framework to teach from as well.

Historically master teachers have always taught different things to different students based on a variety of factors. Those factors include what he wanted the student to know, and teaching to the student’s strength, etc.

However, accepting all things being equal what a teacher teaches you also depends on what the teacher himself knows at the time. All real teachers are just students themselves who are further along in their education. Therefore the point in time in which you are taught in the teachers own educational process, will have a strong bearing on what is actually available to teach to you.

Also strong consideration must be given to the motivation and goals of the teacher, with regard to you as an individual. If you have entered into a student teacher relationship that is also a business relationship, this will have a major impact on information received to support the business structure.

What a teacher shares with you to teach to students in your business may be far removed from what he may teach someone not engaged in the support of a business relationship where there is a mutual benefit, because the goals are completely different. I know that we all would like to believe there would be no difference in curriculums between students but that position would be short sighted. Teacher likes, dislikes, what your teacher wants you to know, and what he himself knows and is willing to share at the time are all examples of the many influences on what any one individual is taught and why.

I would also like to point out this idea of American Kenpo evolution is mostly erroneous. Ed Parker as an individual evolved and so did his personal methodology, but the art he popularized is a divergence from what he himself practiced.

This is evidenced in the many things Parker did not put in his commercial art that many have decided is greatly lacking, in general, from their understanding of Parker’s Kenpo. Thus, the exodus of Kenpo Students to other arts to fill in “perceived holes.” Parker was an accomplished grappler, had a great understanding of human anatomy, TCM, acupuncture meridians, weapons, etc. yet all are absent from most commercial Kenpo. Students and teachers alike should only speak of “their” Kenpo and not generalize and equate what they do or do not practice with the whole of the Kenpo community.


The modern motion based concept has virtually gone unchanged since the late 60’s with the exception of the addition or deletion of a strike here and there. The overall philosophy of motion being arranged and studied has not changed. This methodology has no higher plane beyond simply moving more, faster, or harder. I have video of Ed Parker Sr. performing all of the techniques from orange through green of the time, and they look pretty much the same as they are done now from what I have seen.

2. What have the rationale's been behind changes in the "signature techniques" that you've been exposed to during your journey's? Specifically, do you recall what was "broke" about an old version of an SDT that called for it to be "fixed"? (I'm throwing these in quotes because I don't suspect things were ever truly static, but merely variant explorations of ideas and principles demonstrated in/by a given tech.)

A good question that will generate different answers, from different people. For me personally, the changing of techniques was always directly correlated to additional knowledge.

3. I've seen some SDT's revisited at multiple levels, with more in-depth explorations of possibilities within the vocabulary of motion and it's expressions (i.e., multiple 5-swords seminars, each taking it to a new level with incrementally 'advanced' information). I know some Prof's opting for 16 method even have in their curriculums planned revisitations of earlier techs at different levels in order to extract more and expand more on the ideas and options in the tech.

Yes, that is my methodology of exploring options of the curriculum at multiple levels. Ed parker originally opted with me there were five levels. I ultimately, see probably more than that now.

Is there a written resource, or constant standard, as to what each technique presents and looks like in, say, advanced shorthand?

I can only speak for myself and the answer is yes in part.

Are most or all of the Seniors aware of pretty much the same advanced-level shorthand variations/expansions on the SDT's?

It would appear there is a great amount of difference with regard to information and methodology.

(Note: The 3rd question relates to the 1st in regards to determining if it's possible to discern where a splinter teacher was in their kenpo knowledge development prior to leaving Mr. Parkers fold, via the depth with which they are able to continue exploring a given technique).

I would suggest, “yes” except as I alluded to earlier, “when” they were taught is “a” factor but not the only factor. Most of those who began study in the late sixties forward see Kenpo only as “motion” based and failed to realize that their lessons of motion is not the only Kenpo Ed Parker Sr. was involved in or taught.

Those from a prior time were exposed to everything from the heavily influenced Japanese/Okinawa karate jiu-jitsu stage in Ed Parker’s Sr. earlier days on the mainland, to the divergence to the Chinese Kenpo as he became more knowledgeable and everything in between before “motion- Kenpo.”

Keep in mind that when Parker conceptualized the instructor/student interpretive motion based commercial product, this did not stop his personal development into the higher levels of the art, nor stifle his then very selective teachings. Even in the “motion” side of Kenpo, clearly he gave more information to some than others. Probably because they were intelligent enough to understand what he was talking about. Some people go to college, some do not. Of those, not everyone graduates and moves to grad school, and then many go far beyond with continuing education.

There are more “grunt soldiers” than there are Navy Seals. After all, not everyone can't be the best. Everyone can't get into UCLA. Everyone can't be on the "A" Team. I believe they call that “life.”

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Doc:

Thanks for your reply as well. Always a pleasure. I look forward to learning more.

Regards,

Dave