Just a question.

[Doc]

GM Parker was constantly updating and evolving his art, so I don't think he would have a problem with his students doing like him after his passing

In concept you are correct sir, however the personal evolution process one might undergo for themselves, is a separate issue from teaching and calling it "Ed Parker's kenpo" as you teach YOUR evolution, disoveries, and preferences to someone else.

 

[Doc]

I have to agree with KenpoDave and his comment. Many times, and I was guilty of it too, people are too quick to judge something, saying that something is lacking, should be added, etc., because its not there. However, its important to have someone who can show you, someone who really understands the system, that perhaps it really is in there, but we just may be missing it.

Now, if we look at two people, who seem to have made some changes...Jeff Speakman and Paul Mills. I have not trained under either of these men, but its obvious they made some changes, Jeff with this Kenpo 5.0 and Paul with the revamping of some material. Now, should we say that they don't understand the art, so thats why they made the change?

If we were to look at any of the top Kenpoists out there, I'm sure we'd see variations. Everyone is adding their own thing to their version. Again, does this mean that they made a change because they didn't understand.

Mike

Yeah, pretty much. But in their defense, they are attempting to rectify their own trainng. Nothing wrong with that. Much better than the ones that speak about how all the information is in the "manuals," or Infinite Insight. rediculous to say the least.

 

[MattJ]

It's funny, the old guys who learned bare bones Kenpo were tough and could defend themselves. Today, too many people can spout off theory until the cows come home, but can't break out of the ideal phase. Kind of makes you wonder.

Bingo. Theory without application is pretty much pointless.