Ed Parker on change says it all!

[Doc]

evolve

1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise.
3. To undergo gradual change

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

interpret

1. To explain or tell the meaning of
2. To conceive the significance of; construe.
3. To present or conceptualize the meaning of
4. To offer an explanation.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,


Clearly when there is a history of a body of work already in existence, it may be “interpreted” by many who are familiar with elements of its concepts. However to “evolve” the work of another suggests you are privileged to all aspects, and elements of that body of work. Simply, you cannot evolve what you do not know. I don’t think anyone can lay claim to knowing all that Ed Parker knew and did over his lifetime in his own personal “evolutionary process.”

When I mentioned “nerves strikes, and slap-checks” ten years ago, some called me obscene names for suggesting there were elements of kenpo I was taught, that they or others were not familiar with. Somehow they felt that all students of Parker were exposed to the exact same information, over his lifetime and many relationships. The arrogance here is the assumption they know all that Parker knew, therefore they could state emphatically what is or isn’t in his evolution of kenpo. Only an idiot would make such a statement, which is why only I speak in personal terms.

But from the perspective of an “art,” that does not preclude an individual taking what he/she knows and “evolving” their own style based on someone else’s work. So you can “evolve” YOUR OWN style based on what Parker taught YOU, and that process requires you “interpret” Parker’s information, as YOU know it. But the end product is YOUR personal evolution or artistic style, and NOT an evolution of Parker’s work. Artistic Evolution is common where an individual may draw from many sources or from specific parts of the same source to suit personal preferences of presentation and design.

Therefore, as artistic expression, you do not evolve the works of Ed Parker. YOU either present it as it was presented to YOU, or take that presentation and “evolve” YOUR own style.

Hard science however does not allow much room for evolution, and only limited interpretation. Science is bound by physical laws determined and set by nature, and may not be changed by personal desire. However the “presentation” of the science can and may be influenced by personal preferences.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I suggest you re-read what I said. The information used as a base must be interpreted to be effective, and that is what I said. I never suggested everyone was doing the same thing, and in fact have always stated just the opposite.

There is nothing wrong with what I read, I just don't want to be lumped in the same category as Clyde.

Mr. YAhoo, you don't know me that well but it is clear that I probably out rank you and am significantly older than you. As far as my relationship with Paul, you apparently don't know that either. I go back to his beginning with Parker and he and I seem to get along fine in spite of your uniformed opinion.

I'm sure that you are older than a lot of people, and according to you all rank is honorary anyway so what's your point?

All ranting aside, I'll play along. Sure you didn't say anything about Mr. Mills in your last post, but I've been around long enough to have read some of your other posts and that is the way you come across. No, you didn't actually say that AKKI is motion kenpo or commercial kenpo ( or whatever other catchy little title you can come up with to belittle the other styles), but it is what is inferred, otherwise there would be no reason to attribute such titles to everyone besides your little group (do you see what's inferred there?). You routinely suggest that the readers of this forum are ignorant and that they should take reading comprehension courses; when, in most cases, they are dead on.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
There is nothing wrong with what I read, I just don't want to be lumped in the same category as Clyde.



I'm sure that you are older than a lot of people, and according to you all rank is honorary anyway so what's your point?

All ranting aside, I'll play along. Sure you didn't say anything about Mr. Mills in your last post, but I've been around long enough to have read some of your other posts and that is the way you come across. No, you didn't actually say that AKKI is motion kenpo or commercial kenpo ( or whatever other catchy little title you can come up with to belittle the other styles), but it is what is inferred, otherwise there would be no reason to attribute such titles to everyone besides your little group (do you see what's inferred there?). You routinely suggest that the readers of this forum are ignorant and that they should take reading comprehension courses; when, in most cases, they are dead on.

Clearly you are hostle for reasons of your own machinations, and even extend that hostility to people like Mr. O'Briant who hasn't really been a party to such negative responses in this thread.

It is also quite clear you have made decisions about what you think people mean, and what they do with no real knowledge. Something I haven't done. You seem to exhibit that insecure "circle the wagons mentality" when there is actually no one attacking.

I have never made an evaluation or criticism of what Paul teaches because I have never seen it, however I do know Paul and what he does. The same holds true for Larry Tatum except he has many more high profile black belts including, Barabar Hale, Bryan Hawkins, Diane Tanaka, Jeff Speakman, Muhammad Tabatabi, etc that allows evaluation on some level possible. Still I confine my comments to him directly and not his students.

My suggestion is you continue with what you find validity and make no assumptions about who, or what I am or mean, and how you may address me. Tell Paul I said hello unless you read something negative into that as well.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Clearly when there is a history of a body of work already in existence, it may be “interpreted” by many who are familiar with elements of its concepts. However to “evolve” the work of another suggests you are privileged to all aspects, and elements of that body of work. Simply, you cannot evolve what you do not know. I don’t think anyone can lay claim to knowing all that Ed Parker knew and did over his lifetime in his own personal “evolutionary process.”

Are you suggesting that Ed Parker knew everything there was to know about the MA? Mr. Parker seems, at least to me, to have been a perpetual student. He continued to learn and change things from the time he began to the time of his death. People will, undoubtedly, argue about the effectiveness or progressive commercialization of his art, but that's a whole different thread or twelve.

It was CDHALL who suggested that Mr. Mills was evolving the art not me. Something I'll address in a minute.

Taken from the AKKI Website:
The slogan of the AKKI is: Higher Proficiency Through Innovation

Webster's New World Dictionary 3rd Ed.
Proficiency-highly competent; skilled; adept.

Innovation- something newly introduced; new method, custom, device; A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF DOING THINGS.

This is all the AKKI has claimed. Mr. Mills used what he learned from Mr. Parker as a base and then added on, changed, added, subtracted, modified, whatever words you choose to use, to create the system he teaches the AKKI. Mr. Mills isn't a very outspoken individual, he doesn't have to be, his ability speaks for him.

3. To undergo gradual change

Guess what? That is what is going on throughout kenpo right now and it will continue to happen when we are all gone, so I guess evolution kinda snuck in huh.

It is also quite clear you have made decisions about what you think people mean, and what they do with no real knowledge.

The same could be said of you.

I have never made an evaluation or criticism of what Paul teaches because I have never seen it, however I do know Paul and what he does.

Does anyone else see a problem with this statement?

My suggestion is you continue with what you find validity

I'm sure I will

and make no assumptions about who, or what I am or mean, and how you may address me.

feel free to do the same

Tell Paul I said hello unless you read something negative into that as well.

I will pass along your "Hello."

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Are you suggesting that Ed Parker knew everything there was to know about the MA? Mr. Parker seems, at least to me, to have been a perpetual student. He continued to learn and change things from the time he began to the time of his death. People will, undoubtedly, argue about the effectiveness or progressive commercialization of his art, but that's a whole different thread or twelve.

It was CDHALL who suggested that Mr. Mills was evolving the art not me. Something I'll address in a minute.



This is all the AKKI has claimed. Mr. Mills used what he learned from Mr. Parker as a base and then added on, changed, added, subtracted, modified, whatever words you choose to use, to create the system he teaches the AKKI. Mr. Mills isn't a very outspoken individual, he doesn't have to be, his ability speaks for him.


Guess what? That is what is going on throughout kenpo right now and it will continue to happen when we are all gone, so I guess evolution kinda snuck in huh.


The same could be said of you.



Does anyone else see a problem with this statement?


I'm sure I will

feel free to do the same


I will pass along your "Hello."

?

 

[MJS]

I personally, know nothing about Mr. Mills. I'm only going on what I've seen here and what I've seen on his site. He has obviously trained with Parker for quite a while. Granted, he is not teaching the material exactly the same way as he learned it, but he pretty much is doing what Parker did when he was learning...he changed the material to suit him better. I realize that change is not something that is widely accepted, especially on this forum, but he is still promoting the art that Parker taught. He might not be going about it in the same way as others, but he's doing it in his own way, and should not be looked down upon for doing so.

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Uh...sorry, but lifting my knee is not merely a thrust.

Part of what I'm trying to say is that the priority is backwards: to state the obvious, power (and techniques) are built from the ground up, not the shoulders down. or they should be.

I don't see the "first move," of the ideal-phase Thundering Hammers as that right hammer/forearm. I see the "first move," as, "step foward with your left foot into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a left inward block."

I also note that even when the legs' action is being described here, it's done with a focus on the periphery of the body--the extremities--rather than the center, a focus (which, I believe, is ultimately incorrect) which is the same as the focus on the upper body--but rotated ninety degrees, if that makes any sense.

What's left out, in other words, is circular motion. I know--the hips' turning will be described as a whip, yes? I'd argue that its EFFECT may be whipping, but that the motion is different.

I'd also argue that while kenpo may certainly (and should, at times) be boiled down to basic principles/actions/keys, there is also a danger of losing the distinctions--the differences--upon which recall, and knowledge, are based.

Robert,
My last answer to your question may have sounded a bit snotty. First of all we do not call turning the hips a whip. Lets isolate thrust... What ever you think makes a good thrust to include whatever you believe about where you generate power is thrust. The same holds true for hammer and whip. Pick any tactic you like be it offensive or defensive and that specific move will fall under one of the three catagories, unless of course you graft two toguether which would then be a sub catagory that has its own list of tactics that fit the situation. You've suggested that the whole concept is distal to what should be happening. I say that if a whip, hammer, or thrust occurs that lacks a principle you think it should have then you can tack that up to being a bad Hammer, Whip, or Thrust. We are reading from the same list of principles that everyone else is; however, every move you can possibly make fits into the catagory of Launch, hammer, thrust, whip, and be neutral. Lastly even if you don't believe that a knee stike is a thrust, it is what ever you may call it, therfore the concept would fit perfectly under your standard of defenition. ( even though it is a thrust mind you) I get the feeling you are rejecting the idea because I am associated with it. To this I say, hate the messenger not the message.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, Sean, I didn't even notice that you posted it. I simply responded to what I read--which struck me as wrong, on the grounds (as I originally wrote)
it very strongly seemed to me to emphasize the movements of the extremities. As, I might as well add, I think that whole vocabulary does.

I also agree with Mr. Chapel--I think it's dead right to argue that there is a difference between adapting kenpo to oneself and teaching that as the right way to do kenpo, and actually, "evolving," kenpo. (Personally, I don't do either.) But as for associating anyone's name with this, no--I've no idea who does what outside my own little bailiwick, and quite frankly I don't usually really care.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Actually, Sean, I didn't even notice that you posted it. I simply responded to what I read--which struck me as wrong, on the grounds (as I originally wrote)
it very strongly seemed to me to emphasize the movements of the extremities. As, I might as well add, I think that whole vocabulary does.

I also agree with Mr. Chapel--I think it's dead right to argue that there is a difference between adapting kenpo to oneself and teaching that as the right way to do kenpo, and actually, "evolving," kenpo. (Personally, I don't do either.) But as for associating anyone's name with this, no--I've no idea who does what outside my own little bailiwick, and quite frankly I don't usually really care.

Robert,
Well then to that, I say, your assumptions on the subject are mistaken; because, each "method of execution" requires the use of your whole body while pinpointing point of origin and taking it from there. The vocabulary only suggests that from a certain point of origin your extremity and body will move according to the natural dynamics of that position. I'm quite aware of your position on non-Tatum Kenpo; however, I would like to point out that the principles of which I speak are detailed in your system somewhere. I mean I'm sure "point of origin" is payed some lip service... I would hope anyway. I would also hope you are familiar with combat considerations. We may focus on something more than you and visa versa but we are not changing anything just redefining the same old Ed Parker's Kenpo.

 

[rmcrobertson]

My, "position on non-Tatum kenpo?" Sigh. I coulda sworn I just wrote that I didn't know all that much about what went on out there in The Big Kenpo World...but I'll try, and hope for a courteous response.

Could you maybe explain two phrases you used: 1) "pinpointing point of origin," and 2) the "natural dynamics of that position?"

Could you also perhaps say something about my basic point: that the language seemed to overemphasize the upper body and the extremities?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
My, "position on non-Tatum kenpo?" Sigh. I coulda sworn I just wrote that I didn't know all that much about what went on out there in The Big Kenpo World...but I'll try, and hope for a courteous response.

Could you maybe explain two phrases you used: 1) "pinpointing point of origin," and 2) the "natural dynamics of that position?"

Could you also perhaps say something about my basic point: that the language seemed to overemphasize the upper body and the extremities?

Robert,
The terms used describe the position you weopon is in before you start the motion. Hammering with the fist suggests you are in a guard position or your hands are above your shoulders. Whipping suggest that your weopon is across your center line and are making an outward strike as a result. Thrust suggest your fist is in position to make that push away from your body toward a target. Your body will aid your strikes as you see fit. because you are starting in one of these points of origin your body will move in certain patterns. Hence the natural dynamics from each point of origin. There are three in case you lost count. My language only emphasizes a persons point of origin and it doesn't dicount lowerbody motion at all. Yes distal guides the proximal; because, you can only start from the position you are in at any given moment. This is why positon beats maneuver, target, weopons, angle, and cover.
Sean

 

[Doc]

It must be in the water.

 

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by Doc
It must be in the water.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Sigung86
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Never have I seen some with the serious inability to communicate and respond to simple discussions. It is as if you are talking to yourself. No response or understanding of what was actually said. Reading comp 101 must be taking some serious hits. Or as the Duke earnestly said in the classic "El Dorado" when Bob Mitchum blew a series of lines that ultimately remained in the film,

"Is it me?"

If it is I apologize.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by MJS
I realize that change is not something that is widely accepted, especially on this forum, but he is still promoting the art that Parker taught.

Really? I haven't noticed it like that...:shrug:

He might not be going about it in the same way as others, but he's doing it in his own way, and should not be looked down upon for doing so.

I haven't seen anyone say anything bad about him, for any reason. But maybe I missed that conversation.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by jeffkyle
Really? I haven't noticed it like that...:shrug:




I haven't seen anyone say anything bad about him, for any reason. But maybe I missed that conversation.

Ok, let me re-phrase that. Nobody has said anything directly about his personality, but they have spoke in a negative way about his art. Just because it is not taught the way Tatum does his, does that mean that Paul Mills teaches anything less effictive? Like I said before, its the same stuff, just put together differently.

MJS

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...Sean, like all English teachers I can count to three. Of course, beyond that I can't answer for.

From the way you phrased your last response, it looks as though you're agreeing with what I wrote about the over-emphaasis on the arms and upper body. I guess I'm misreading.

And writing as a teacher of writing--lots of adjectives, and technologized language, are often signs that some concept hasn't been analyzed sufficiently.

Then too, writing as a bit of a theorist, it is dangerous for one's concepts to take the idea of, "nature," in human beings without about a pound of salt. It's why it's good to explain, rather than invoking, "nature," as though everybody agreed on what, "nature," was.

Sometimes, I'm even wary about the ideas of, "natural motion," upon which I rely. For example, a lot of the early techniques in kenpo rely upon the idea of flinching, and adapting the, "natural," flinch into a defensive response.

When I was about nine, I got into a snowball fight after Sunday school--saw this one big one coming at me from about fifty feet away--looked it all the way in, didn't move a bit...it hit me right in the eye.

 

[Touch Of Death]

huh?, I thought I just said there was no emphasis on one or the other and that you are limited to moving from where ever a weopon happens to be; so, methods of execution start from that point. Your perception of our art being distal is eronious. Your addiction to the abstruse gets in the way of master key basics.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...Sean, maybe it's about time for me to drop this--however, I will say that I'm not sure what's all that abstruse about a post whose major points hinged on the words, "flinching,"and, "snowball."

As for the point about nature, well, I guess it's a bit out there. So to be clearer--one of the hallmarks of essentialist/idealist philosophies is the refusal to explain terms, and a fall-back on unanalyzed ideas such as, "nature." For example, partiarchy--the silly notion that "men"are superior to, "women," rests upon ideas of either a) "biology,"or b) "religion," that are usually kept beyond analysis. After all, if they got analyzed, they would quickly fall apart (if supposed to be biological, a real look at their science would expose them as false)....or be exposed as demanding adherence to a particular religion.

I'd still be interested in seeing some of your terms better defined: I simply am not acquainted with them.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I admit I was a little lost on that snowball thing so I decided to jab to see what would happen. Which terms are confusing you?
I would be happy to attempt an explanation. Just bear in mind that I don't have a whole lot of reference material so I will be free-wheeling it. I heard the word abstruse on Regis and Kelly and I thought it might mix things up a little. It seemed to fit based on your suggestion that we are over simplifying.
Sean