Kenpo and Tai Chi

[Doc]

Resumes not withstanding, I must respectfully disagree with much of what you say here. I did not have the honor of meeting or learning directly from Ed Parker, however would question why he created such an eclectic art if his views were to seperate the so-called plumbing from the electrical work. If we accept what is inferred from such a statement, then American Kenpo would not have been developed to include the locks, holds, manipulations, nerve strikes, take downs, along with the block-punch-kicks of basic karate.

Further, stating that Tai Chi is simply for health and longevity is an incomplete description of the art. The Tai Chi master that I have the honor of training under will go further by saying that the full health related benefits of Tai Chi cannot be realized without learning Tai Chi in its entirety, which includes the martial intent.

The original question posed in this thread was whether or not Kenpo had some of the fundemental elements of Tai Chi, such as energy flows... well, I maintain that you can enhance your Kenpo to do so, but if you learned Kenpo as I am, modifications are needed in anatomical structure (expand, sink, coil), bodily movement (one part moves, all parts move and single weightedness), and breathing. I am convinced that applying these and other principles associated with Tai Chi to Kenpo will allow one to cultivate chi, and not compromise Kenpo principles. And at the risk of paraphrasing the good Doctor, well, they were at one time and to some students part and parcel of Ed Parkers American Kenpo.

Finally, the final scenario of who I'd rather face in a dark alley is irrelavant. Neither Kenpo nor Tai Chi are arts of aggression, but rather arts of self defense and preservation. Our Kenpo techniques are all against an aggressive provocator, as opposed to Sport Arts or Boxing where antagonistic behaviour is encouraged. Therefore, I'd feel rather safe meeting up with either one.

Very well said "Pete." I also thought I had made a distinction earlier in the thread between the health component "Tai Chi," and the little known and fairly secretive combat applications of "Tai Chi Chaun."

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Well said. In reverse order (said the dyslexic)...

At the risk of sounding like the good doctor, stating that Kenpo and Tai Chi are arts of self-defense and preservation runs awfully close to being a gross generalization. Many in the "traditional" arts poo-poo'd the Gracie Challenge when it hit the shores, including Tai Chi instructors...whose great-grandfathers in martial ways were veterans of multiple challenge matches. The early days of Kenpo saw not a few seniors with heavy ties to men of questionable professional activities, often relying on the violent capabilities of the system to aid in achieving their objectives. Nefarious and ill-meaning persons study the arts, too. Wanna hear a good one? Just two weeks ago, a pacifistic friend of mine who practices BJJ and Muay Thai (paths commonly asssociated with aggro attitudes & behavior) had to sit on a Tai Chi instructor with a shaved head and multiple racist tattoes at a private-professional college in Colorado...easy money would bet the BJJ guy started it, but it would be money lost to the house.

With respect to the eclectic nature of Kenpo, it has contained a comprehensive index of jujutsu-type techniques since before it hit Hawaii's shores...the same battlefield skills used by Samurai and foot soldiers on the attacking side of feudal skirmishes, as on the defending side. We can offer a code of honor and ethics for students and screen for questionable intent, but it is up to the individual horse to drink.

And, as I made it a point to say throughout, I can only base my opinion on my own experiences. In Kenpo, there are moves embedded in some of the self-defense techniques that very much resemble postures from Tai Chi. Still, I have never seen a Yang style form in a Kenpo test.

I will say this to address your revivification of the threads original query: I started Tai Chi b/c a friend of minestudied it intensively while away at college, and came back with more cohesive overall body mechanics and technical congruency in his Kenpo then he had when he left...and he didn't practice his Kenpo at all while on this hiatus. By practicing some of the neat stuff in Tai Chi (sorry, I forget fancy & correct terms), I've seen improvements in my sparring skills for subtle evasions and redirections, in addition to an increased sensitivity to the relationship between my own body, and the attacks of my opponents.

As a final thought, the origins of both held mixed intent as the arts of warrior-priests. The purpose of practice is to expand the size of the vessel, so it can hold more, and do more. Along the idea of taking a boy off the farm, both -- as in-depth studies of the interrelationships between mind and motion -- will always have an energetic expansion component that complements the martial, and a martial component practiced to challenge limitations and expand horizons that permits and invites the flow of the spiritual.

Confused by paradox and looking forward to your next insightful installment (I know that might sound sarcastic, but it's not...I really enjoy reading well-thought out and stated opinions),

D.

Rock on.

 

[pete]

I started Tai Chi b/c a friend of mine studied it intensively while away at college, and came back with more cohesive overall body mechanics and technical congruency in his Kenpo then he had when he left...and he didn't practice his Kenpo at all while on this hiatus. By practicing some of the neat stuff in Tai Chi (sorry, I forget fancy & correct terms), I've seen improvements in my sparring skills for subtle evasions and redirections, in addition to an increased sensitivity to the relationship between my own body, and the attacks of my opponents.

This is exactly why I advocate crosstraining in Tai Chi, or better yet an integrated approach to Kenpo incorporating Tai Chi principles. For the most part, and pardon my generalizations which are obviously based on my personal experiences and observations, Kenpo teaches us how to defend and retaliate using strong stances and multiple and varied natural weapons. However, there is less emphasis on the body mechanics which move us from one place to the next. This is compounded by the premature addition of excessive speed and power that a student desires (too look cool) and an instructor may even encourage (to retain a student). Kenpo stylists must learn at early stages how to shift their weight, step properly, achieve balance and whole body unity, and breathe. That is why "slow Kenpo" is (a) difficult to do, (b) not a pretty sight, and (c) cannot, without the proper inclusion of tai chi principles, effectively be a conduit of internal energy.

 

[wingchunner]

1.) Well actually your body DOES know how to move efficiently, however we unlearn and are taught incorrect mechanics as we live our lives due to external influences and physical mandates of society at large.

you miss the point. You said "does kenpo.." its all about what we do as individuals according to what we were taught. I can say confidently that yes I do, although from what we consider a more modern, practical, efficient, and effective perspective. Although I don't pretend ownership of any interpretation, yes the Kenpo I was taught by Ed Parker Sr. IS different.

1.) I disagree that our bodies innately know how to move, which seems to be what you are implying. When I watch my nearly two year old daughter move, it's not out of efficiency, but out of emotion. Her responses stem from emotion, thus, thought is not really put into how she is moving.

2.) It's good that you practice those things I mentioned. My kenpo karate experience didn't teach that. How do you determine that something is more modern, practical, efficeint, and effective? What is your baseline to verify what you have said? Did Mr. Parker make it this way, or is this what you have done with what Mr. Parker taught you?

Marty

 

[Doc]

1.) I disagree that our bodies innately know how to move, which seems to be what you are implying. When I watch my nearly two year old daughter move, it's not out of efficiency, but out of emotion. Her responses stem from emotion, thus, thought is not really put into how she is moving.

Thought is NOT an issue but instead is the problem. We are taught certain movements by those who have no undestanding of efficient anatomical movement, and instead end up contridicting what is correct. The unknowledgeable teach anatomical movement from an aesthetic perspective, choosing to focus on how it looks rather than how to move.

But the analogy of a child's movements is not a good one. Left alone our children will grow up and, absent anatomical anomolies, will learn to walk properly without instruction as an example. An adult when threatened with external stymuli will, through startle reflex, move the body to protect itself without instruction. These synaptic pathways are sound and efficient and should be exploited rather than changed by intstructors with no knowledge of the physics of human anatomy. No, you are correct. The body does not instinctively know how to move offensively, but sound defensive mechanisms are inately "built in."

2.) It's good that you practice those things I mentioned. My kenpo karate experience didn't teach that. How do you determine that something is more modern, practical, efficeint, and effective? What is your baseline to verify what you have said? Did Mr. Parker make it this way, or is this what you have done with what Mr. Parker taught you?
Marty

Ed Parker was pure genius and was influenced by some of the best. His relationships with Ark Wong, Jimmy Woo, Lau Bun, Haumea Lefiti, James W. Woo, Share Lew, and others allowed him to glean the best information available of the "how." His quest, as I was taught, was to distinguish anatomical movements into the distinct categories that separate the "training" movements from the "application" movements, from the "cultural" movements.

As I'm sure you know, these things are all taught together and the teacher utimately will distinquish these things only after many years of commitment to
their interpretation and descretion. Parker wanted to distill the cultural and time elements to focus on the "applications" more immediately while distinquishing the "training" methodologies, with only a hint of the previous "cultural" accoutrements out of respect for the source origins.

This produced a self-defense vehicle with a more immediate understanding of its proper use, as well as the training benefits inherent in the process of proper anatomical execution. This interpretation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo is not based on "abstract motion," but instead focuses on "efficient anatomical movement" and is NOT "Kenpo Karate" as most modern practitioners know it. Kenpo Karate is Parker's conceptually motion based commercial business model and by design is devoid of such information.

However it is recognizable as being the original Chaun Fa/Chinese Kenpo and I, based on things Parker said to me call it Sublevel Four Kenpo externally to distinquish it from the many other Parker interpretations. I continue still to extraoplate information from my lessons from Parker and my previous lesson experiences with Ark Wong with the emphasis on quality and not quantity of students.

 

[Gary Crawford]

note to mods- the last post I made here was two years ago and Doc replied with his dissagreement,that's fine. Doc dinging my rep points for this TODAY is abuse of the rep system.

 

[Gary Crawford]

A retraction- I do not know who dinged me this time-Doc my apoligies