Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry that I took the issue seriously and wrote what I thought. I'll try not to do it again.
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?
Kenpo_Cory
I don't question the effectiveness because I've used it, I've seen it used and without a shadow of a doubt, I know it works
I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...
Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?
There are several very good posts that have illustrated several insights. We must consider that there are a number of things that could have happened. To get down to the bottom of this question will be impossible since two of the three persons in question are not with us anymore.Origin. posted by Kaith Rustaz
I have heard that some kenpo techniques flawed, so as to make students think.
GoldenDragons one of the seniors on MT, he might have some insite.
Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Times change, things change. Mr. Parker didn't like several of the techniques or forms the way they were written, quite honestly he rarely did them that way. So if Parker didn't like them or do them that way, then why should those sequences become the holy scripture of kenpo?
Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
The big questions here is:
What technique is in question?
Was it later 'fixed' by EP or is it still in the core?
Unless we know this, everythings just needless speculation and that leads to lost tempers, etc.
:asian: [/B]
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Every time something like this comes up, the accusation goes out unto all lands that the matter divides neatly into "traditionalists," and, "innovators," with the innovators putting themselves on the side of God, truth, and the good old American way.
You're right. We are all different, we train different, have different beliefs, so of course the debate is going to split.
Claiming that people like me and Clyde are "traditionalists," is hilarious. More to the point, this "either/or," is a simplistic way to see the issue. And remarks about folks' instructors remains a convenient way to duck out on thinking about anything--not to mention building up one's own ego, which was my point in the first place.
LOL! Well Rob, I gotta disagree with this one. You are probably one of the biggest advocates of tradition on this forum. For example, look at the thread "Lights Out" You thought that this type of training was not necessary---why? Cuz its not tradition. As for the remarks about the Inst.--- Well, I'd rather not comment on that one!
An example? Well, if you'll read the first post I wrote, I seem to be a member of a church that thinks its founder led a fallible and human life...hm.
Wait a min. I thought that there was only 1 church---the church of the cross trainers?? LOL
Sorry, gotta go now. Awaiting the lightning bolt from the cloudless sky... [/B]
What????
Mike
Originally posted by Seig
Ok Guys,
I don't want to have to "officially" put on my moderator hat.
Originally posted by rmcrobertson
could anybody point out exactly which techniques, as they presently more or less stand, are flawed? and how they are?
Interesting topic.
Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Wow, it sure got quite. :shrug: