EPAK and SL-4

[Bode]

According to Bode, SL-4 is different than EPAK.

As Handsword did in a private message, all you had to do was ask what I meant instead of assuming. I, as Doc said, was making a lineage distinction. As much as I respect Ed Parker, my knowledge comes from Doc. I show Mr. Parker respect when necessary, but to me, Doc is the currrent source. Does it come from Mr. Parker originally? Yes, but Doc is closer to home.

People usually ask, "What martial art do you do?" To which your respond, "Kenpo" and the next question is typically, "Who is your teacher."
SL4, problem solved.

Also, I am of the belief that if you say EPAK to someone it generates certain thoughts about what it is you practice. It feels every person ever involved in the martial arts knows something about Kenpo. "Oh yeah, I heard of that, it's a lot of hand strikes" By saying SL4 I avoid any misconceptions. But that's just my preference.

 

[Flying Crane]

... what he is lashing out at are those that decided at green belt that they were really 5ths or better, opened a school in strip mall and started giving the gift Mr. Parker gave us a really bad name in some circles.

While Doc may rail about "motion" kenpo, a term I personally find issue with, I think he would be better served calling it commercial kenpo, what he is really railing about is poor instruction based on incomplete information.

First off, if I have misunderstood anything that I am about to comment on, please feel free to correct me.

Based on other comments that Doc has made in other threads, it seems that Mr. Parker actually allowed this low quality instruction to happen. Doc's comments indicate that Mr. Parker granted rank to people who wanted it, even when they wanted it primarily to further their business/dojo, which Mr. Parker also profited from (the Business Model/Commercial System). Doc also commented that Mr. Parker stood by and watched while some instructors granted rank that clearly wasn't merited. He signed off on the certificate, and made no objections.

If this is true, why did Mr. Parker do this? He allowed the business aspect to take over, and allowed half-trained individuals teach and represent his art, and even use his name in the business of what they were teaching. I dont understand why he would do this.

This situation perpetuates itself, because half-trained people teach, give rank, and the next generation of instructors is only one quarter trained, and so on. But if Mr. Parker had not allowed these people to teach in the first place, and had not given out rank, this would have been avoided. So now people who thought they were properly trained are being told by someone that they are not, and are being told that what they are teaching is poor quality and half understood by them. I am not surprised that some people react in a hostile manner when someone comes along and starts telling them that what they do is all half-baked. If this is true, they were apparently mislead by Mr. Parker himself. This just doesn't make sense to me.

I can understand why some non-SL4 people would feel resistant to Doc. In the years since Mr. Parker's death, many people have stepped forward and made claims to be teaching the true art, the only way it was meant to be done and all others didn't get it right. I don't have a close connection to Mr. Parker, but even I was aware of this. It has been played out in the Martial Arts magazines, and on the internet. All kinds of wild claims are made. To many people, Doc might seem like another one of these. I am not stating that I think he is (I am in no position to judge one way or the other), but I can certainly understand why people would feel this way.

I guess what I am saying is that if what Doc claims about the prevalence of poor quality kenpo is really true, it all comes back to Mr. Parker. If so, why did Mr. Parker allow this to happen, and perhaps even encourage it?

 

[Flying Crane]

As Handsword did in a private message, all you had to do was ask what I meant instead of assuming.

Well, I could see where she might have thought she understood what you meant, and no further clarification was necessary. Evidently she was wrong, but didn't realize it. It happens on the internet. Messages get jumbled and misinterpreted.

 

[Bode]

Well, I could see where she might have thought she understood what you meant, and no further clarification was necessary. Evidently she was wrong, but didn't realize it. It happens on the internet. Messages get jumbled and misinterpreted.

Yep, it was too late to edit my response. I looked back at it and went, "Hmmm, that could be taken differently". My apologies. I just never realize how much what people read is actually remembered! However my quote came off, it wasn't good. (I wish I had as much time as Dr. Crouch to write a response)

In regards to Mr. Parker allowing the business model to run wild. I can only imagine that at the time, like Doc now, he did his best to educate the close students he did have. Will there be a better way to communicate the ideas, concepts, and movement later? Yes. But at the time Mr. Parker was probably doing his best to teach what took him years and years to learn. He had not yet codified the material into something that was methodically "teachable". I have seen videos of Mr. Parker trying to teach someone how to "Slap Check", only to have the student not even see what Mr. Parker was doing. It's not that he didn't try, it's just that his time and ability to articulate the concept were limited. The codification process for how to teach slap checks did not exist. Rather than introduce the material early he simply removed or let people who picked it up, pick it up.

Naturally with some students he either had more time with or they came from similar origins (As did Doc. He was a student of Ark Wong). Because they had the same background and fundamentals it made it much easier to teach the material. They both spoke the same language so to speak.

Did Mr. Parker let promote bad black belts? That isn't for me to decide. He let each person tailor the art to fit their backgrounds. This allowed for people to pick up the art quick. Did it help his bottom line? Yes. Did it make the people worse martial artists? Probably not.

The theme I am harping on is this... you have to put the material in context of the times. Back then the martial arts world was much different. Very few people had been exposed to Karate. Mr. Parker brought it to the masses. So the question is, "Are people better off having no knowledge of martial arts or some decent knowledge?" Was Mr. Parkers teaching "low quality" because he tried to disseminate information broadly? My oppinion is no.

 

[Flying Crane]

But at the time Mr. Parker was probably doing his best to teach what took him years and years to learn. He had not yet codified the material into something that was methodically "teachable".

Good point, and I was going to go into this a bit but forgot. Doc keeps talking about how things changed over and over, the system evolved as Mr. Parker tweaked things to fit a probably constantly changing vision of what the art should be. What an early student learned would be quite different from what a later student learned. I don't think this means that the early student learned "bad" stuff, or was a poor student or half-trained, even tho Mr. Parker later saw reasons to make changes. Perhaps the art in its later stages broke thru to a new level that it hadn't achieved before. But it doesn't mean that what came before was no good. In fact, the later breakthru would not have been possible without the earlier version.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Good point, and I was going to go into this a bit but forgot. Doc keeps talking about how things changed over and over, the system evolved as Mr. Parker tweaked things to fit a probably constantly changing vision of what the art should be. What an early student learned would be quite different from what a later student learned. I don't think this means that the early student learned "bad" stuff, or was a poor student or half-trained, even tho Mr. Parker later saw reasons to make changes. Perhaps the art in its later stages broke thru to a new level that it hadn't achieved before. But it doesn't mean that what came before was no good. In fact, the later breakthru would not have been possible without the earlier version.

If you get out to enough seminars or garage-sessions with enough seniors from various decades in kenpo, you see some significant differences in focus. Guys from the 60's and 70's who broke off to do their own thing don't concern themselves with things like extensions, forms, family groupings, etc. You'll see Obscure Wing show up in the white belt cirriculum of one splinter, and in the orange or purple of another guys. The focus is usually on training harder to hit harder. I think it was Mr. LaBounty who made the distinction between iron-workers & watch-makers. The kenpoists from more recent generations tend to have a more watch-maker mentality, focusing on definitions and specifics; older guys on iron-working...get grizzled and hard by banging away. The older stuff tends to look a bit less sophisticated, but IMO works a bit better for you when it comes time to actually blast the bad guy in the grill.

I thought the story about the kenpoist who lost the match lecturing the guy who won it on kick mechanics was a priceless demonstration of this issue. The old iron-workers wouldn't have bothered talking about it at all; they would have just gone home, and trained the heck out of counters to that kick, and jumped into the very next tourney to see if it worked, imagining that guy they lost to the enitre time they trained (seeing his face on the heavy bag, etc.).

And, btw, Doc ain't the only guy I've heard discuss how rank was ratified or given away for poor performance. Another gentleman who was intimately associated with Mr. Parker, and used to join him on grading boards abroad, recounted being aghast at how bad some of the people testing (and passing) were...he would whisper in the ear of his comrades, just to the side of Mr. Parkers vision. Mr. Parker eventually asked him not to do that, because it was on him to look imperious and impressed as the SGM, and it was hard to do when he knew what they were whispering in the corners, and it would make him want to laugh. He also added that Mr. Parker, occasionally seeming to have given up on the whole quality control hting in exchange for not going BK again, would rise from the grading table to leave the room and sort of "baptise" or "announce" grade advancements as he walked away. "You're a 4th now...you go ahead and be a 5th..". Apparently, when word of this tendency got out, hangers-on looking for this sort of social promotion would show up at the tests, wearing their gi's with belts on, and cluster around the table as the test wound down, hoping to be blessed by the kenpo pope to a new black belt grade. So now you have a small gaggle of people with unwarranted promotions, spreading the gospel as they know it. But hey...they got the belt and the blessing from the old man, so that has to prove something about them being right, eh?

Why would he do it? He had a family to support, and had already gone BK once. The people closer to him got more of the meat and potato's, so the legacy wouldn't die. I may not like the commercialism of the art(s), but the more I struggle financially, the more I can see allowing the temptation to take little Jonny's money in exchange for another stripe on his pee-wee belt.

When I had a studio in Stanton, I had differing levels of expectation for different folks. I had the kids class, and the adults classes. Then, when everybody went home, we shut the door for my long-time workout buddies and serious students to come by. Noses would break; ribs would crack; knees would bend in ways they shouldn't outta. If I get hit by a car tomorrow, both groups have certificates signed by me. But at least I know the core intensity I wanted to see my art represented with lives on in a few students. I was (in my opinion) clever about it though: different looking certs with different names for the art.

D.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think it was Mr. LaBounty who made the distinction between iron-workers & watch-makers. The kenpoists from more recent generations tend to have a more watch-maker mentality, focusing on definitions and specifics; older guys on iron-working...get grizzled and hard by banging away. The older stuff tends to look a bit less sophisticated, but IMO works a bit better for you when it comes time to actually blast the bad guy in the grill.

Interesting analogy.

I haven't actually had much experience with EPAK people, and in all honesty most of my understanding of how they do things comes from what I have read in magazines, books, and the internet. The one thing that I have noticed is this trend toward definitions, classifications, terminology, and science to try to probe and understand the art. This seems to me to be an intellectual exercise that, like I have stated before, may be true in the theoretical level, but I often question how much of it translates well onto the street and makes any difference. I really thought that this approach is just downright weird and even misguided. It seemed to me that they were trying to write the physics equation to describe the perfect punch, or something. Hell, put your pen down and just get out there and throw some punches. Forget the physics and other overly intellectual minutia.

When I first found Martial Talk, and first started reading about things like SL4, I have to be honest, I figured it is just another bunch of guys looking for that elusive physics equation. But your posts, Dave, have been helpful. Your descriptions about what you guys are trying to accomplish, and how you go about training, are written in an understandable way for those of us not in the know. Thanks again for your patience in the stuff you have written, it has not gone unnoticed nor unappreciated.

Getting back to the Ironworkers vs. Watchmakers analogy. Maybe SL4 are the guys who build and maintain huge clockworks like Big Ben. You guys look for the most effective nuances, you get into the minutia, but you still hammer away with the big machinery and do the heavy lifting.

thanks.

 

[Bode]

I
Getting back to the Ironworkers vs. Watchmakers analogy. Maybe SL4 are the guys who build and maintain huge clockworks like Big Ben. You guys look for the most effective nuances, you get into the minutia, but you still hammer away with the big machinery and do the heavy lifting.
thanks.

I understand why you would say this given the track record on the forums. However, one of the things I constantly hear from Doc is, "Stop trying to be so damn technical and just move!" He is always making sure we don't try to be the scholar before the warrior. We will have time to be the scholar when we can't move anymore!

I also believe that online it is much easier to talk about mechanics and the "how to" because the physical element is missing on the forum. So we often laps into technical jargon, scientific terms, etc, because that is how we describe them VOID of the physical element. In class, it's all physical. I just clocked someone last night who simply didn't get out of the way fast enough. We could discuss simple ways to beat someone to a pulp ad nauseum, but discussing the truly HOW to improve a technique is what the online forums is best suited for (along with training methods). We struggle online to put our best foot forward and describe the material in a way, using terminology, that best communicates an idea. I.e. the terminology should be descriptive.

Again, and I emphasize, this is simply because of the absence of the physical element.
So yes, we are technical, but until someone steps on our mats, it's really hard to tell whether or not we truly can be physical. Dr. Dave will attest to our classess having a strong physical element.

 

[Flying Crane]

I understand why you would say this given the track record on the forums. However, one of the things I constantly hear from Doc is, "Stop trying to be so damn technical and just move!" He is always making sure we don't try to be the scholar before the warrior. We will have time to be the scholar when we can't move anymore!

I also believe that online it is much easier to talk about mechanics and the "how to" because the physical element is missing on the forum. So we often laps into technical jargon, scientific terms, etc, because that is how we describe them VOID of the physical element. In class, it's all physical. I just clocked someone last night who simply didn't get out of the way fast enough. We could discuss simple ways to beat someone to a pulp ad nauseum, but discussing the truly HOW to improve a technique is what the online forums is best suited for (along with training methods). We struggle online to put our best foot forward and describe the material in a way, using terminology, that best communicates an idea. I.e. the terminology should be descriptive.

Again, and I emphasize, this is simply because of the absence of the physical element.
So yes, we are technical, but until someone steps on our mats, it's really hard to tell whether or not we truly can be physical. Dr. Dave will attest to our classess having a strong physical element.

Thanks for that clarification. You are absolutely right. We cant whomp on each other here in the forums to get the point across. All we can do is talk and talk and talk some more and that isn't the same as doing.

 

[Flying Crane]

Another question for the SL4 people:

Before I stumbled onto Martial Talk, I had been completely unaware of Mr. Parker's training with Ark Wong, and the heavy influence that training apparently had on Mr. Parker's further development of kenpo.

My kenpo is from the Tracy lineage. I have read descriptions of some of the EPAK (sorry, I know you guys don't feel that's an appropriate term, but it's convenient shorthand when I am typing) techniques and many of them seem to still be quite close and similar to what we do in Tracys, inspite of the differences in names. So it seems to me that the root of the techniques remained kenpo, even tho they apparently went thru some pretty extensive changes from the early days. So in what ways did Mr. Wong's teaching influence Mr. Parker's kenpo? Did Mr. Parker keep any of the material that he learned from Mr. Wong, and bring it directly into kenpo? Was it more in the approach to How to do something, rather than simply What to do? What would you say is the signature mark that Mr. Wong left on the kenpo that Mr. Parker developed after training with him? Why did Mr. Parker not keep any of the forms that he learned from Mr. Wong?

Thanks.

 

[JamesB]

I first became aware of SL4 several years ago, after reading articles posted on the Internet. You know, the whole 'SL-4 vs Motion Kenpo' thing, and how commercial-kenpo's blocks were not 'correct', and that the stances were no good etc. I was a brown-belt at the time IIRC. I was indignant - "My kenpo's not commercial!" - only realising years later that it was, and had to be, otherwise our small school would not have existed. Back then I was not aware that my own instructor was a student of Dr Chapel's.

When I started reading Doc's posts I remember thinking 'hmmm this sounds interesting, what's all this about Advanced Kenpo Concepts and SL-4??' But at the same time I was also thinking, who on earth is this guy? (Doc). There I was reading articles about Kenpo, and wanting to believe that AK was this fantastic art, but at the same time feeling very threatened by what Doc was saying in his articles. I "knew" that the neutral-bow was the "best" stance, and that the inward-block was the "best" way to block and I didn't know how to react to Doc's posts - at the time they felt like an attack on my own kenpo.

When AK people join the Internet to read about Kenpo I think the majority instinctively seek out what they believe in - i.e. they want to validate their own kenpo and feel happy about what they are doing. It's natural human behaviour to act this way. However for some people, any post that flys in the face of what they do is perceived as an attack on their own kenpo and many aren't comfortable dealing with it - so they don't, at least in any constructive way.

There is a idealogy held up by pretty much all kenpo schools, that AK is the best and baddest martial-art out there. New students are indoctrinated with this mantra, and rationalize their training by saying 'this is Ed Parker's kenpo, obviously it's the best'. They believe that simply following the list of techniques written out in "Infinite Insights" will lead them to the same place that Ed Parker was at. What many fail to realise is that what they are learning/practising is *not* Ed Parker's kenpo. It is their instructor's.

Think logically for a moment on how Mr Parker got to where he was at, and why you won't be ending up at that same place. He studied Judo, Karate, Kung-fu, all manner of arts. He didn't just train in them though, he studied the science behind them. All day, every day, because he was *that driven* to develop himself. Do you really believe that your current Kenpo syllabus will get you moving like Ed Parker? All those subtle nauances, that explosive energy? Sure, you might pick some of these things up along they way, but is it really the most effective way to learn how to develop those kind of body-mechanics?

Kenpo is supposed to be the 'most effective' martial-art. So what happens when someone comes along and shows you that what you are doing is not effective anymore? Do you put your fingers in your ears and go 'na na na I can't hear you!", or do you stand up tall, swallow your ego, and try to incorporate these new ideas into your kenpo. Not just for your own benefit, but for your student's as well? That is what Kenpo is all about. It's clearly one of the driving principles in the Infinite Insights - that holiest of bibles that must not be contraticted. Have an open mind, be honest about yourself, and when you find something different don't just discount it because it's not 'kenpo' as you know it - instead play with it, and if it works for you then embrace it as best you can.

All those weird things that Doc talks about, such as BAMs and PAMs, and body alignment, and god-knows what else. They are wonderful devices, built into every technique, that teach you how to correct your posture and achieve a better standard of Kenpo. I won't ever move like Ed Parker, or Doc, or my own instructor. I'm not an SL-4 student, but just the principles (such as PAMing and BAMing and alignment) have really done alot to improve my kenpo and I totally dig the SL-4 approach.

I used to think that SL-4 was a different art. Then I realised that I didn't understand my own art. SL-4 *is* American Kenpo. It is the same art, it just has a very different approach to training. You want to know why Doc is so vocal? I believe he loves his art so much he just wants to share what he does so that everyone can improve their own art as well. Doc's not the only one, I'm sure there are lots of really good kenpoists from that same era as well, but Doc seems to have gone further by 'codifying' his material into a really solid syllabus, so that mere mortals like myself actually have a chance of taking some of it on board.

 

[Flying Crane]

Think logically for a moment on how Mr Parker got to where he was at, and why you won't be ending up at that same place. He studied Judo, Karate, Kung-fu, all manner of arts. He didn't just train in them though, he studied the science behind them. All day, every day, because he was *that driven* to develop himself. Do you really believe that your current Kenpo syllabus will get you moving like Ed Parker? All those subtle nauances, that explosive energy? Sure, you might pick some of these things up along they way, but is it really the most effective way to learn how to develop those kind of body-mechanics?

This is a very good point, and something that I think many people don't realize.

It is always an interesting thing when someone founds a "new" system (not just referring to Mr. Parker, but to any in the general sense). Often, it seems that the founder is very skilled, the first generation students are also quite skilled, but after that there is a general degredation in the ability of the students who follow.

Often, I think that when someone establishes a new system, they do so after having studied deeply several different arts. They then distill what they feel are the best aspects of those arts into one new system. This seems to work well for the founder and perhaps his direct students, but not so well after that. In my opinion, the reason for this is that the many years of training in the different arts gave the founder a much deeper understanding, and greater skill. Having trained the different systems in their entirety, is what gave him the skill. Now, having dissected and rearranged the different arts into something new, the complete picture has been chopped up and any students who do not also study the different arts in a complete manner will never achieve the same level of ability. The students don't get the benefit of all the basics that make the different arts work in their specific manner. They also don't have the same long years put into study and training, so they just don't reach the same level that the founder did. Instead, they get a hodge-podge of stuff, none of which works as well in a disjointed manner, when taken out of the context of the parent art.

I sometimes wonder if Kenpo suffers from this problem in some way. Mr. Parker was very talented, and had studied several arts under several teachers. His kenpo is derived from these several arts, but does not include any of the arts in their entirety. Maybe that is one of the problems that later generations have difficulty in overcoming.

 

[Carol]

I sometimes wonder if Kenpo suffers from this problem in some way. Mr. Parker was very talented, and had studied several arts under several teachers. His kenpo is derived from these several arts, but does not include any of the arts in their entirety. Maybe that is one of the problems that later generations have difficulty in overcoming.

That is an interesting. Most (but not all) of my instructors (and assistant instructors) have black belts in Kenpo as well as at least one other art. The ones that do the best job at describing the art the way I can best understand/remember/process it are the ones that have the most diverse backgrounds.

 

[JamesB]

That is an interesting. Most (but not all) of my instructors (and assistant instructors) have black belts in Kenpo as well as at least one other art. The ones that do the best job at describing the art the way I can best understand/remember/process it are the ones that have the most diverse backgrounds.

A diverse background is good in many ways, but is also the reason why there is so much variation in Kenpo - not everyone's stances are the same, blocks are different everywhere you go, and all because some instructors were kungfu guys, some were karate etc.

 

[Carol]

A diverse background is good in many ways, but is also the reason why there is so much variation in Kenpo - not everyone's stances are the same, blocks are different everywhere you go, and all because some instructors were kungfu guys, some were karate etc.

That hasn't been my impression with my own training. Despite the differences in instruction, whether I am engaged with an instructor in my own school or in an outside school...the stances, blocks, strikes, have all been the same....despite the very different backgrounds of the folks that have tried to teach me. I tend to make the same mistakes, and receive the same corrections until I can properly get the improvement through my thick skull. :rofl:

What does seem to matter is the lineage and how the particular senior learned Kenpo and taught it to the head instructors. I think the basics that I drill on are the same from school to school due to the commonality of lineage. But, that's just my personal experience.

 

[Bode]

On that note...
In my oppinion the lack of significant knowledge by many of the martial arts teachers out there is the unwillingness to stay with one teacher for a long period of time. Granted, maybe they haven't found that one, amazing teacher. The teacher that never ceases to add layers of depth to what you thought you knew. I don't see anything wrong with studying other arts ad nauseum, but I caution those who do this because, perhaps, they may not have had the time to be exposed to all the layers in any particular art.

In regards to SL4... Doc stayed as a student of Mr. Parkers for 27 years. Where many people got their black belt and left to open a school or train already existing students, Doc was ever present. There were very few students of Mr. Parker who were as consistently present and not dabbling in other arts, competition fighting, running the business, etc...

I truly believe that Kenpo, when taught properly, is a very complete system with the exception of rolling around on the ground. (You do learn arm locks, bars, finger locks, etc... just not often applying them on the ground). But the question is, if Kenpo is complete, then why the need to get a black belt in 3,4, or 5 arts? Why all the crosstraining in other arts?

If it is because of boredom then perhaps the student should seriously look at their teacher and ask, does he really know what he's doing?

If it is to "become a more rounded martial artist" I would suggest that there are only so many ways someone can throw a punch, shoot for a takedown, sucker kick you, etc.... all of those I found well covered in the curriculum. In short, anything standup is covered by Kenpo if you are dilligent and have a patient, knowledgeable teacher.

So back to the thread. The difference between SL4 and EPAK... EPAK has become a generic term. Many people get a black belt in it and walk away thinking they have learned everything they needed. It's not their fault, the commerical system was designed to allow people to do this. Tailor it to fit you.

I was just talking to a bodyguard the other day and she asked, "What martial art do you do?" I said, "SL4 Kenpo" to which I invariably get the reply, "Oh, I know what Kenpo is." People latch onto the idea that it's all the same. It's not. The foundation is, but each teacher took it the direction they chose. Tracy's stuck with the earlier Chinese Kenpo. Other people splintered off and took what they needed. (Danny Inosanto). So is it all the same? Absolutely not. SL4 has the same roots, but not the same manner and execution of technique.

 

[Doc]

There have been and there always will be heated discussions amongst those that are passionate about American Kenpo. It has taken me a few years to finally understand that Doc is not criticising my Kenpo, he and my instructor are good friends, what he is lashing out at are those that decided at green belt that they were really 5ths or better, opened a school in strip mall and started giving the gift Mr. Parker gave us a really bad name in some circles. While Ed Parker never called his art Ed Parker's Kenpo, he did call it American Kenpo. My instructor refers to what we do as the Ed Parker Kenpo Karate System. I believe that where EPAK comes from is in a differentiation between Parker systems and Tracy systems. While Doc may rail about "motion" kenpo, a term I personally find issue with, I think he would be better served calling it commercial kenpo, what he is really railing about is poor instruction based on incomplete information. Honestly, what he is saying is find some good, quality instruction.

There are some sir who have a significant problem with the term "commercial" as well, although both descriptors are more than appropriate. (motion or commercial) I tend to use them both for that reason. The commercial system is based on the abstract study of motion, and Parker said the same.

However, although I have pointed out on numerous occasions the flaws in the commercial system, I have always stated the level of sophistication of what is done with this system is a direct reflection on, and the responsibility of the head instructor. You sir are one of the lucky ones who happens to have a teacher that is flat out brilliant, AND chooses to use it in the art. However he is an anomoly within the system, and does not reflect the vast majority of those who populate what has become more business than martial art. In fairness there are other intelligent teachers in the arts as well, (I don't want to start naming names and forget someone) but many of them have made a concious choice to but their brilliance into marketing the product and themselves for business purposes, instead of close examination and implimentation of the art. So even these people make a choice that leaves much wanting as far as the art is concerned. But even these are a very small minority. Kenpo isn't exactly overflowing with MENSA members sir.

 

[Carol]

On that note...
In my oppinion the lack of significant knowledge by many of the martial arts teachers out there is the unwillingness to stay with one teacher for a long period of time. Granted, maybe they haven't found that one, amazing teacher. The teacher that never ceases to add layers of depth to what you thought you knew. I don't see anything wrong with studying other arts ad nauseum, but I caution those who do this because, perhaps, they may not have had the time to be exposed to all the layers in any particular art.

In regards to SL4... Doc stayed as a student of Mr. Parkers for 27 years. Where many people got their black belt and left to open a school or train already existing students, Doc was ever present. There were very few students of Mr. Parker who were as consistently present and not dabbling in other arts, competition fighting, running the business, etc...

I truly believe that Kenpo, when taught properly, is a very complete system with the exception of rolling around on the ground. (You do learn arm locks, bars, finger locks, etc... just not often applying them on the ground). But the question is, if Kenpo is complete, then why the need to get a black belt in 3,4, or 5 arts? Why all the crosstraining in other arts?

If it is because of boredom then perhaps the student should seriously look at their teacher and ask, does he really know what he's doing?

If it is to "become a more rounded martial artist" I would suggest that there are only so many ways someone can throw a punch, shoot for a takedown, sucker kick you, etc.... all of those I found well covered in the curriculum. In short, anything standup is covered by Kenpo if you are dilligent and have a patient, knowledgeable teacher.

Personally, I enjoy hearing people's reasons for doing what they do, or even what they like or don't like. But...what I'm reading seems like some hurried negative judgement behind one's individual reasons for training and that just sits with me in a bad way.

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong and I do apologize if I am, but I feel like I'm being put on the defensive. The way my instructors learned their arts are not the way that you described. I don't think my Kenpo is something that needs massive justification, but I do respect and appreciate the folks that I train with and I'd hate to see them slighted for spomething they are not. I hope that is understandable

So back to the thread. The difference between SL4 and EPAK... EPAK has become a generic term. Many people get a black belt in it and walk away thinking they have learned everything they needed. It's not their fault, the commerical system was designed to allow people to do this. Tailor it to fit you.

I was just talking to a bodyguard the other day and she asked, "What martial art do you do?" I said, "SL4 Kenpo" to which I invariably get the reply, "Oh, I know what Kenpo is." People latch onto the idea that it's all the same. It's not. The foundation is, but each teacher took it the direction they chose. Tracy's stuck with the earlier Chinese Kenpo. Other people splintered off and took what they needed. (Danny Inosanto). So is it all the same? Absolutely not. SL4 has the same roots, but not the same manner and execution of technique.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I bet if I was in class with you all, many of this would be easier to follow. (Maybe someday... ) Trying to soak it up just from the net isn't quite as clear. Thanks a lot for clarifying :asian:

 

[Seig]

Once I was talking to another Instructor and we were discussing the whole pain compliance thing. I said it's fun to teach but not what I rely on. He asked me what I relied on, my answer, blunt force trauma....

 

[Sigung86]

Once I was talking to another Instructor and we were discussing the whole pain compliance thing. I said it's fun to teach but not what I rely on. He asked me what I relied on, my answer, blunt force trauma....

My whole astronomical paradigm consists of, "Twinkle, Twinkle little star".


I was gonna do a rofl smilie, but for some reason I can't pull up the list of the rest of the smilies. Just consider the little smile a big rofl smart alecky kind of response that is apropos of absolutely nothing. In other words, no offense was intended in the making of this little funny.