Choosing techniques to teach in kenposchool

[Flying Crane]

I think that the EPAK system provides examples of all the movements in the Tracy system. And each system can render equally good martial artists. I just think that the equation formula made it possible to "compact" the system into EPAK.

I don't know the Equation Formula, but you could very well be right. One of my big complaints with the Tracys curriculum is the amount of repetition in many of the techniques. There is certainly room to streamline, without loosing anything.

This is my point: there are certainly reasons to do this. Mr. Parker did it, I suspect he wasn't finished when he passed away. Others will do it as well.

 

[evenflow1121]

Equation Formula:

To any given base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) ajust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.

 

[Flying Crane]

Equation Formula:

To any given base, whether it is a single move or a series of movements, you can (1) prefix it - add a move or moves a before it; (2) suffix it - add a move or moves after it; (3) insert - add a simultaneous move with the already established sequence (this move can be used as a (a) pinning check - using pressure against an opponent's weapons to nullify their delivery, or (b) positioned check - where you place the hand or leg in a defensive position or angle to minimize entry to your vital areas); (4) rearrange - change the sequence of moves,(5) alter the - (a)weapon, (b) target, (c) both the weapon and the target, (6) ajust the - (a) range, (b) angle of execution (which affect width the height), (c) both angle of execution and range: (7) regulate the - (a) speed, (b) force, (c) both speed and force, (d) intent and speed; and (8) delete - exclude a move or moves from the squence.

OK, these are concepts I have become familiar with thru discussions here and reading Mr. Parker's books. Just didnt know it by that name.

Again, going back to my prior post. My only point is, where do we start counting when we say the "complete" system, or the "whole" system, or the "original" system? These terms meant different things at different times in history, but they all were methods Mr. Parker was using at those times, and we can see that Mr. Parker saw reason to make changes that resulted in a system with a smaller list of techniques. Whether the ultimate result was better, worse, or the same is something that I cannot judge. I think they can all be top notch, if done well, but can also all be lousy when done poorly.

This is why I think change will continue to happen. Some things may be poor, others good. Some will proliferate (hopefully those that have high quality), and others will die with their creators. But feeling that it is somehow crucial to maintain the system as it was when Mr. Parker passed away is a notion that I believe is simply erroneous and short-sighted, and will result in the deterioration of the art in the long run. It would become archaic and no longer applicable to modern realities, and would be subject to the same criticisms that many other traditional arts are given, as out-dated and no longer cutting edge.

Just my thoughts.

 

[evenflow1121]

I think you are absolutely right, I dont think there is a complete system or an original system, or a whole system. I believe its just instructor, your instructor is going to try to teach you the system the best way he or she knows how. Now within that range there is a margin or error, you know the self proclaimed soke's and grandmasters and what not that are in it for themselves and not for the style. My point is, that there is more to Kenpo than the techniques, I perhaps, call me a masochist or paranoid, like the 24 technique currirulum, but at the same time there are instructors that choose to teach a shorter version and teach this version because in their minds they feel that it is more practical, I mean that is fine too. The guy who teaches the correct system should be your instructor until you find a new one. I would simply rather teach a 24 tech curriculum because it was what I was taught, I have a pretty good idea of what I would use in a fight and what I definately would not, but thats me, a student of mine should be free to make up his or her own mind.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think you are absolutely right, I dont think there is a complete system or an original system, or a whole system. I believe its just instructor, your instructor is going to try to teach you the system the best way he or she knows how. Now within that range there is a margin or error, you know the self proclaimed soke's and grandmasters and what not that are in it for themselves and not for the style. My point is, that there is more to Kenpo than the techniques, I perhaps, call me a masochist or paranoid, like the 24 technique currirulum, but at the same time there are instructors that choose to teach a shorter version and teach this version because in their minds they feel that it is more practical, I mean that is fine too. The guy who teaches the correct system should be your instructor until you find a new one. I would simply rather teach a 24 tech curriculum because it was what I was taught, I have a pretty good idea of what I would use in a fight and what I definately would not, but thats me, a student of mine should be free to make up his or her own mind.

I think that's a reasonable position to take.

 

[JSK]

Hello,

I am back from a vacation and now i am going to read the reactions on my question about choosing techniques.

First of all thanks for the discussion.
Second i have to read the stuff first.
Later allthough i am a beginner in the sport i will give an opinion.

I am now learning the official techniques from the Ed Parker System as they are standing in the books.
I am a homestudent and next year i will go to a real school.
The discussion from you will help me understand the sport and give me a good insight in what is going on in the kenpoworld.

For now thanks again and see you when i see you.

Jos-hua

 

[melj7077]

I remember Mr. Planas telling us once that if they kept every technique they ever had for every belt there would be an encyclopedia for each belt.

That dictated what I would teach later on. In general, if you are going to say you teach Ed Parker kenpo then you should stick with Ed Parker material. The difficulty arises when you try to figure out what the right set of material is (16 system, 24 system, 32 system).

Many of the techniques are in fact repitions of previous material just done in a slightly different way. I was taught the 32 extensions and told the rest were added on later. from what I have seen of them they seem to be grafting exercises. My biggest problem with them was they seemed to eliminate thought from the student. Memory became the issue. Also, are there 6 forms or 8?

What I came to realize through study with my present instructor is that everything is based on pure theory. My own interpretation of how a system comes into being is as follows:

The originator has learned a system and has progressed enough to learn pure theory of motion. These are the principles. From there they develop their own tactical theory based on the focus of the style they want to teach (how much hand work, how much kicking, what percentage of ground techniques, weapons, etc.). This is why tactics are ever changing but principles are never changing.

From the tactical theory a set of basics, forms, and pre-sets/techniques are developed that demonstrate the tactical theory which should reflect the pure theory of motion. Therefore, any style of martial arts that follows the pure theory of a system can be considered legitimate so long as the rules are clear, spelled out, and work.

So any techniques can be taught so long as the justification is there. Deletion, additions, and substitutions are fine as long as you aren't claiming to be an Ed Parker System Kenpo school. If you leave stuff out then you aren't teaching EPAK. That's okay so long as you can justify what you teach by theory and what you removed by theory.