Kenpo differences - standardize or leave alone?

[Simon Curran]

Exactly what I was thinking. I mean by who's standards are you going to ...umm, standardize Kenpo?
Just like with JKD which way is the right way. Or the other arts?
There are dozens of people coming up with their own ways of doing things.

IMO... if it works use it. It doesn't really matter who's right or wrong as long as the method is effective in ending the fight.

Personally I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think it would be great for us poor minions if we could get all of the seniors together, and have them set the standards, based upon discussion, and experimentation, but like I say, that's just my opinion.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Exactly what I was thinking. I mean by who's standards are you going to ...umm, standardize Kenpo?
Just like with JKD which way is the right way. Or the other arts?
There are dozens of people coming up with their own ways of doing things.

IMO... if it works use it. It doesn't really matter who's right or wrong as long as the method is effective in ending the fight.

Well, you need to analyze what, why and how it is that you do. Kenpo is the study of motion. (Yes even for the good ole Doc) but it all depends on exactly what, why, and how you "do the motion" that you are involved in. It has to be fundamentally sound and well rooted. There ARE better ways in doing some things that we do, depending upon the goal and intent.

Yes we all study Kenpo the (((motion))) Art........ but many do it in different ways.... Many do not realize that there are 3 parts to this (as Mr. Parker used to say to me).... there is ...
Motion,.......
Emotion, ...... and
Commotion!! lol

I know of several that come to mind and fall into the last category!

:asian:

 

[Mark Weiser]

Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.

Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

 

[SION]

Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.

Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

I think I see were you are going,

Its like learning to spell and write, two differant things. But to begin with everyone learns the same way, we all copy the base alphabet in large print[basics] we then move on to spell short words [techniques], then comes writing once we have learned our alphabet and the neccesarry words to put sentences together, over time we learn to write stories. Some then move to more specialist writing [Doc's SL4], others are happy where they are, they keep writing different stories in different ways. Some go on to learn other languages,[different arts] some make up their own language [foo man choo].

Up shot we all learn in Kenpo the same standardised basics.

C

 

[Doc]

Now I maybe off slightly or may chose the incorrect words. SGM Parker in his Book Series has already set the standards by which all Kenpo is to be taught. The basic principles and foundation of Kenpo is already set for all future Kenpoist within those pages.

Now once you have the basics on which Kenpo is based then you can adjust and modify your Kenpo to suit your needs. That is why it has been said you can take 10 Black Belts and have them do one technique and each one will execute the technique differently. But the root of Kenpo has been instilled and built up in each of them from the beginning.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

That would be incorrect. You cannot suggest all of Kenpo should follow what is in Infinite Insights. In terms of information it is an extremely shallow conceptual work by design. They were written for all martial artists, not just kenpo, and these books actually do not tell you HOW to do anything.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Well just as anything in Life that I tell everyone when they give an opinion. It is just that an opinion and your entitled to it. I wonder if and we may all have the same question when reading this thread.

I wonder what SGM Parker would be doing with this question. LOL

 

[Bode]

Well just as anything in Life that I tell everyone when they give an opinion. It is just that an opinion and your entitled to it. I wonder if and we may all have the same question when reading this thread.

I wonder what SGM Parker would be doing with this question. LOL

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think it's less of an opinion and more of stating what, when reading Infinite Insights, seems clear. The books were conceptual. Yes, there are Kenpo techniques in some of the books, but not very specifically written. Just as it is difficult to learn basics from a video, it is difficult to learn them from a book. There are ideas throughout the books that are sometime discarded and not mentioned again. They are concepts he seemd to throw to the wind, used or not, by the martial arts community. Thoughts about the martial arts in general. I don't think he ever say's, "It must be done this way because...." Rather, he presents concepts for people to pick and choose from. I'd even be willing to bet that if I read them again I could find contradictions in his writings.
The Infinite Insight series is so tightly connected to Kenpo, which is unfortunate, because any Martial art could benefit from applying the more generic concepts within.

Did Mr. Parker intend the books to be strictly for Kenpo? Any comments Doc?

 

[Rick Wade]

OK I am going to jump in, late in the conversation so I may be off base here but I like the thought of only having the sets and forms standardized. I like going to others American Kenpo Schools and asking If I can drop in? They say sure come on down and then I see techniques that are not done not exactly like I know them and I start asking questions (after class of course) sometimes I get enlightened and sometimes I think they are full of scheisse. I always come back with more information than I started my journey with. My point is the forms and sets are the base of the system. I don't like to look at it as right and wrong way to do a technique I like to look at it as if there were a right and better way to do a technique.

Just my two cents worth.

V/R

Rick

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. General problem--it looks to me like a number of the people who militate for, 'standards,' in kenpo (including those who militate for business standards) are primarily motivated by their desire for power. No, I don't have anybody on this forum in mind (off the forum, I ain't saying)--but I do mean to say that if you look with one eye only, you'll see a lot of little tin godism out there. "Standards," are just an excuse, among many other excuses.

2. General problem--based on my limited look at tournaments, videos, etc., the standards for basics (especially including stances!) are not high in the wunndeful world of kenpo. When I go to a tournament and see a "high-ranking," kenpoista do Long 4 without power, focus, well-shaped weapons or heart, something is rotten in the state. How to fix this I have no idea, because it's my distinct impression that imposing some sort of national board would only create worse problems. Fortunately, I have a back yard and the wherewithal of various sorts to keep learning--because the day a board starts standardizing is the day I quit organized kenpo. Not gonna happen anyway.

3. Kenpo is not the study of motion. Kenpo is the study of a, "scientific," method of self-defense, and maybe the study of the "internal," aspects of a martial art. The study of motion is a tool, a means to the real end. Or to quote the Car Talk guys, "We're not interested in cars! we're interested in PEOPLE! Cars are just a way to talk to them!!"

4. At the same time, kenpo simply isn't arranged or theorized so that you can simply ignore the correct motion in favor of some fancied goal. There ARE right ways and wrong ways; even at very advanced levels, you simply can't do whatever the hell you please and call it good kenpo. Among other things, this would violate the whole idea of having a, "universal pattern," or calling kenpo a, "martial science."

5. For example, there ARE right ways and wrong ways to do basics. You do not hook an inward block towards you, or stick your elbow out when you're doing an inward block, or ignore the proper relationship between the block and the stance--not if you want the block to work. Same with stances, same with everything.

6. We would be better off if Bruce Lee and his brilliant arguments were ignored. Far too many people, and not just in kenpo neither, use that stuff as an excuse to do everything else but learn the damn basics--an excuse to avoid sweating.

7. The techniques in, "Infinite Insights," are described with exquisite clarity, and so are the forms, and so are the basics. Yes, Mr. Parker (like many of his students) tended to teach the techniques different ways every single time. But books have to be frozen insofar as their words are concerned--and as a result, what we have there (and in the manuals too) is a pretty good account of the base technique. You should learn the ideal first unless there's some over-riding reason not to--like absolute and unchangeable physical incapacity. Then, you should extract the principle of what you're teaching, and adapt it for the student.

8. Again, learning the piano or ballet demands seemingly endless, seemingly robotic practice. All those goddamn scales, arpeggios, rhythym exercises, jetes, plies--boring, boring, boring. Unless of course you happen to have a teacher (or you realize) that the boring repetitions are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Which is changing YOU--not the system, YOU. Kenpo teachers and students have a lot to learn from the likes of Baryshnikov, Rubenstein, Gelsey Kirkland, Allegra Kent, and all the rest. Like patience and discipline, and a little faith in their teachers.

9. There is no substitute for a good teacher--which means somebody who will work to teach you what they were taught. If you think you're above all the menial labor--and that's what's going on in some of these arguments, guys who think they're too cool to do the grunt work--good for you.

10. General problem--there seems to be something inherent in kenpo that encourages a kind of laziness, rush, and characterlessness. One of the reasons for the basics is the disciplining of the self. I do not believe that you can simply think your way to self-discipline, or innovate your way to it either.

Did I miss ticking off anybody?

 

[Bode]

I want to say that I agree with 90% of what you say. Basics are lacking. Power and standardization go hand in hand sometimes. Definetly.

Kenpo is not the study of motion. Kenpo is the study of a, "scientific," method of self-defense

So it is scientific... i just want to establish that.

4. At the same time, kenpo simply isn't arranged or theorized so that you can simply ignore the correct motion in favor of some fancied goal. There ARE right ways and wrong ways; even at very advanced levels, you simply can't do whatever the hell you please and call it good kenpo. Among other things, this would violate the whole idea of having a, "universal pattern," or calling kenpo a, "martial science."

If kenpo is a science, as above, then why can't we call it a martial science? I tend to think that we agree way more than will ever be determined on this board.

The techniques in, "Infinite Insights," are described with exquisite clarity, and so are the forms, and so are the basics.

Depends on what standards you are holding to your level of clarity. Regardless, it is still a book and as such, lacks a great deal of informatioin you can only get from a competent teacher.

Again, learning the piano or ballet demands seemingly endless, seemingly robotic practice. All those goddamn scales, arpeggios, rhythym exercises, jetes, plies--boring, boring, boring. Unless of course you happen to have a teacher (or you realize) that the boring repetitions are doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Profoundly important statement.
I wish the world were so perfect that everyone would stick through the basics. Not all schools have the luxury of taking their time with students. To do that would be to go out of business so many schools, much like social promotion in our school system, move them right along.

there seems to be something inherent in kenpo that encourages a kind of laziness, rush, and characterlessness.

Seems to me that speed plays into this. Everyone wants to round the corners and have blazing hands as quickly as possible. Speed is a signature of kenpo. Too bad. People would be much faster if they concentrated on basics first.

And no, you didn't tick me off. You have some very insightful posts. We only disagree on a few points, but they are big ones! And as I said, in person this would all smoothe over. I guarantee without a doubt you would see my basics in every single movement. (I've seen people have to sit down in class because they weren't performing a forward bow properly and coudn't or wouldn't correct it)

PS> I don't do a modified side horse when delivering my inward block.

 

[Doc]

Well here's the problem I see with a couple of points of view. What some are speaking of is A Kenpo, not the definitive kenpo. And the kenpo you speak of is NOT definitive, and that is why everyone is different. The forms and sets generated for it are not the base, but only conceptual ideas to in some cases be explored, and in others created to keep you "busy." The forms themselves are a combination of several different eras and interpretations with the later ones designed strickly for the "business" of Kenpo.

The original forms and sets have specific purposes when Parker began studying with the Chinese. "Star Block" came right from Ark Wong. What became "Short One" and "Short Two" used to be one form, and was then cut in half to make two for the "business." Some forms like "Tiger and Crane" came from Hung Gar and had various interpretations and influences, and were later dropped. "Two-Man Set," came from Jimmy Woo and came to be known as the "Book Set" and then too it was dropped. The number "one" sets were influnced by several people in the Chinese arts in conjunction with Parker, and the "two" sets were created by Jim Mitchell in some cases.

These are not opinions they are facts of reality of what Mr. Parker was doing. I know Infinite Insights well, and was in everyone of them. I know what thet are and what they represented.

I know the tendancy is for people to embrace what they do as a single entity of Mr. Parker's design, and there is nothing wrong with that. But at the same time you must also acknowledge there are other interpretations also of Mr. Parker's design that co-existed and evolved concurrently with, and pre-date his business version.

We must stop speaking of kenpo as this single entity of which everyone has the same understanding, with the expectations that somehow everyone should be, or could be all the same. That is not possible. Look at the diversity even before Parker created the business model. Chuck Sullivan was different from Dave Hebler, who is different from Steve Hearring, who is different from James Ibrao, who is different from Dave German, who is different from Steve LaBounty, who is different from Mike Pick, who is different from Bob Parry, who is different from Joe Dimmick, who is different from me, etc

And everyone of these guys were there BEFORE the Kenpo that you understand that's represented in Infinite Insights even existed. Even in the book it states the conceptual information was accumulated within a 10 year period between about 1970 to 1980. Mr. Parker lived and learned long before that, and for a decade after that material was put together and it is only a very small slice of the mans life, and a drop in the bucket of his knowledge.

Some would LIKE to make it that simple, and wrap everything into these books. Some would like you to think its that simple and believe the forms and sets are the base of the art. Some would like you to believe that what you are looking at is THE Kenpo instead of just the small part of Kenpo that it is.

The people that came after 67/68 are relegated, (unless they venture out) to the motion based commercial interpretation and they call it THE Kenpo. yet all of those who came before that, do something a tad different and don't do Motion-Kenpo at all. Not one of them including me.

So anytime anyone speaks of Kenpo as a single entity, they'll hear from me. I certainly am kenpo and I studied without break with the progenitor, and I'm "different." So is Hearring, and LaBounty, and Pick, and ... well, you get the idea. There will always be major differences between at least two of the eras. Most do Kenpo from the commercial era. Some of us are "B.C." and will always be different. If you have respect for the Man, then you have to honor all of his work, not just the motion vehicle he came up with that made many of his later students a pretty good living.

Now that's my dime rant aimed and particularly no one.

 

[Doc]

1. General problem--it looks to me like a number of the people who militate for, 'standards,' in kenpo (including those who militate for business standards) are primarily motivated by their desire for power. No, I don't have anybody on this forum in mind (off the forum, I ain't saying)--but I do mean to say that if you look with one eye only, you'll see a lot of little tin godism out there. "Standards," are just an excuse, among many other excuses.

2. General problem--based on my limited look at tournaments, videos, etc., the standards for basics (especially including stances!) are not high in the wunndeful world of kenpo. When I go to a tournament and see a "high-ranking," kenpoista do Long 4 without power, focus, well-shaped weapons or heart, something is rotten in the state. How to fix this I have no idea, because it's my distinct impression that imposing some sort of national board would only create worse problems. Fortunately, I have a back yard and the wherewithal of various sorts to keep learning--because the day a board starts standardizing is the day I quit organized kenpo. Not gonna happen anyway.

3. Kenpo is not the study of motion. Kenpo is the study of a, "scientific," method of self-defense, and maybe the study of the "internal," aspects of a martial art. The study of motion is a tool, a means to the real end. Or to quote the Car Talk guys, "We're not interested in cars! we're interested in PEOPLE! Cars are just a way to talk to them!!"

4. At the same time, kenpo simply isn't arranged or theorized so that you can simply ignore the correct motion in favor of some fancied goal. There ARE right ways and wrong ways; even at very advanced levels, you simply can't do whatever the hell you please and call it good kenpo. Among other things, this would violate the whole idea of having a, "universal pattern," or calling kenpo a, "martial science."

5. For example, there ARE right ways and wrong ways to do basics. You do not hook an inward block towards you, or stick your elbow out when you're doing an inward block, or ignore the proper relationship between the block and the stance--not if you want the block to work. Same with stances, same with everything.

6. We would be better off if Bruce Lee and his brilliant arguments were ignored. Far too many people, and not just in kenpo neither, use that stuff as an excuse to do everything else but learn the damn basics--an excuse to avoid sweating.

7. The techniques in, "Infinite Insights," are described with exquisite clarity, and so are the forms, and so are the basics. Yes, Mr. Parker (like many of his students) tended to teach the techniques different ways every single time. But books have to be frozen insofar as their words are concerned--and as a result, what we have there (and in the manuals too) is a pretty good account of the base technique. You should learn the ideal first unless there's some over-riding reason not to--like absolute and unchangeable physical incapacity. Then, you should extract the principle of what you're teaching, and adapt it for the student.

8. Again, learning the piano or ballet demands seemingly endless, seemingly robotic practice. All those goddamn scales, arpeggios, rhythym exercises, jetes, plies--boring, boring, boring. Unless of course you happen to have a teacher (or you realize) that the boring repetitions are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Which is changing YOU--not the system, YOU. Kenpo teachers and students have a lot to learn from the likes of Baryshnikov, Rubenstein, Gelsey Kirkland, Allegra Kent, and all the rest. Like patience and discipline, and a little faith in their teachers.

9. There is no substitute for a good teacher--which means somebody who will work to teach you what they were taught. If you think you're above all the menial labor--and that's what's going on in some of these arguments, guys who think they're too cool to do the grunt work--good for you.

10. General problem--there seems to be something inherent in kenpo that encourages a kind of laziness, rush, and characterlessness. One of the reasons for the basics is the disciplining of the self. I do not believe that you can simply think your way to self-discipline, or innovate your way to it either.

Did I miss ticking off anybody?

Yeah, you missed me. With the exception of a couple of minor points, I generally agree with what you said.

 

[KenpoDave]

Well here's the problem I see with a couple of points of view. What some are speaking of is A Kenpo, not the definitive kenpo. And the kenpo you speak of is NOT definitive, and that is why everyone is different. The forms and sets generated for it are not the base, but only conceptual ideas to in some cases be explored, and in others created to keep you "busy." The forms themselves are a combination of several different eras and interpretations with the later ones designed strickly for the "business" of Kenpo.

I snipped it for space. Doc, well said. Be careful, though, this is the stuff Al Tracy has been saying for years, and you see where it got him...

 

[KenpoDave]

Yeah, you missed me. With the exception of a couple of minor points, I generally agree with what you said.

Yep. Me too. It was a well thought out post.

 

[Doc]

My worry is:
"When does it stop being American Kenpo"

We tend to be all inclusive in an umbrella of Kenpo, and tolerate a lot of deviation when it comes to techniques, forms, sets, and some basics. When and who would decide when an organization strays too far afield (if in fact there is any such thing.) Think about James Ibrao's Kenpo as vs. Dennis Conatser's. Where the Priciples, Concepts, and Theories as developed by Mr. Parker are consciously applied, is that Kenpo? How about those arts that use them, but cannot articulate why they do what they do. Does it take standardization of techniques & forms ... or is it principles and concepts?

Very shakey ground here to me. I would love to see a cohesive Kenpo group with multiple associations doing essentially a similar system or art, I am just not sure it is possible at this point. Is Ron Chapel's SL-4 able to be reconciled with Paul Mills AKKI techniques? I don't know. In a perfect world maybe we could have perfect Kenpo. We know the umbrella of the Senior Counsel was not able to cover the members, or those left out intentionally? It was the right idea ... but you have to have active, willing, proactive participation, a committment to the goals, and a shared desire to drive toward the same end - and to "hold the line" rather than make exceptions due to seniority or "we don't know that" or numerous other complications all organizations have to deal with.

A little Organizational Psychology should tell you how difficult this noble goal would be. Standardization of at least a minimal level would ensure that no matter where you went, the Kenpo you know would be available. A noble dream, one worth fighting for, but do not discount the hurdles inherent in trying to resolve this. Everyone wants it probably, but who is willing to compromise the way they teach their art? It takes a big man/woman to subjugate his/her teaching to a "standard" that he/she may not agree with completly. Once again, where would we draw the line?

Whew!! Way too long a post. I have reason to wish it were easier. I do miss the days when Mr. Parker was the driving influence or source of the Kenpo out there. Even if it had changed ie. Tracy's or Mr. Mills, you knew where it came from.

-Michael
UKS-Texas

You're just too dam smart.

 

[Doc]

I am about to get in trouble here. Once again, American Kenpo is not the only viable flavor of Kenpo. As stated there are a number of different styles of Kenpo that would, at least in my paradigm, not mesh into a viable admixture that could reasonably be called American Kenpo.

I think that things went too long without any attempts to achieve a meeting of the minds, and I'm really not sure that it could ever really happen or have happened the way some folks are envisioning it.

Now, I suspect that the only way there will ever, truly, be a unified Kenpo is if all the various "sub-cultures" die out due to not being valid, useful, or simply lack of interest on the part of new students. On the other hand, that is the way it has always been. The less vigorous or useful arts are now gone or are in the process of dying. Interestingly, now-a-days, we allow for 200 seperate types of Kung fu. In the late 60s and early 70s, there were about 2000 styles on Mainland China.

I suspect that due to amalgamation or due to the above listed reasonings, we are now down to 200, and I suspect that over the ensuing generations, such will happen in Kenpo. Since I began study of Kenpo in '71, and most particularly in the past 10 to 15 years, there have been astronomical advances in Kenpo. It continues to suffer growing pains, but it is growing and changing daily. And that is a good thing.

dan

Took you long enough Dan. Of course there is Kenpo other than Ed Parker influnced as well, even beyond Al Tracy, who as another off-shoot, can probably never be reconciled with any Parker interpretation in his eyes. And even if it did, Al would probably change it.

As far as the sub-cultures dying out, I'm not so sure. I know from experience the dominant Kenpo is the commercial variety for what I consider obvious reasons. It is a given that human nature will always dictate the search for the "easy way." Witness the proliferation of video and distance learning programs. As much a joke as they are profitable, they still exist and show signs of having real legs. Why? So some people can say, "I studied and got a belt." Even if how they studied is laughable. I suspect money will keep the weak stuff around. true some will die out but they will be replaced by equally bad material, and probably died more from mismanagement than anything else.

Hey Dan, remember when you knew every Chinese, Korean, and Japanese style there was? Now every 20 year old with a DVD player who has a Bruce lee video and book has created their own style. I suspects it will only get worse.

I like what Parker said. "If everybody is doing it, it can't be the good stuff." The more sophisticated, difficult, and effective the material, the less people will sign on for the long haul. That's life. Pass me the video, I got a test coming up.

 

[Doc]

I snipped it for space. Doc, well said. Be careful, though, this is the stuff Al Tracy has been saying for years, and you see where it got him...

My teacher always taught me to give credit where credit is due, even if it hurts. Tell the truth and let it be. Parker gave Al credit when it was due, and so do I, but that other stuff I don't sign on to. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't make a living teaching kenpo so nobody can hurt me, and besides nobody has invited me to a camp since I knocked that guy out in Vegas in 98. Scared the bejeebas out of the instructors but the students loved it. I guess I'm destined to be a solo act.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I hate it when nobody yells at me.

Fact is, "commercial," kenpo is in all of our hearts, and we have to struggle against it all the time.

Interesting thread, all in all.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Did Mr. Parker intend the books to be strictly for Kenpo? Any comments

No. He knew that anyone that could see the logic in human movement could benefit at what he discovered "if they but try" and apply the principles.

The material is always pointed at the individual, never is there a mention of his findings only being "system specific". That would be like saying Basketball is only applicable for Americans or Golf is only for the English or Tennis is only for the French..... well you get the idea.

:asian: