I've said this before, and it has yet to be negated. I can't say it
factually, though, because I haven't learned the entire system.
I was told, however that once you learn the rules, principles, and
most importantly flow of motion, and all of the concepts and
principles intended in kenpo, then all of those principles can be
seen in other styles and arts. And that one wouldn't have to
necessarily study a system to black belt in order to "bring into"
kenpo what you've learned.
I've heard that Frank Trejo has incorporated some serious sticky
hands stuff into their kenpo, for example. But AFAIK, he still
teaches the original curriculum, to teach you all that Mr Parker
wanted to teach.
I think what is necessary is to not think of Kenpo as a singular entity because it is not, nor has it ever been. What is the original curriculum to you I can guarantee, is not the same for me and many others as well.
I think it all boils down to your instructor and not your instuction. If you are continualy told that what you are studying is all you will ever need, chances are you are going to believe it. Rather than experiencing the vastness of information and eagerly trying soak it all in, it seems that all to many people are being fitted for a big ol' pair of blinders. Grapplers might try to grapple at the wrong situations but Kenpo guys should never choose an inapropriate range, position, or manuever, target, angle, and cover without "considering" the best course of action. Cross trainers see the similarities and it would seem that Kenpo guys don't want to see beyond their training floor.
Although that may be true in some cases, such sweeping generalities will not serve your argument. As far as cross training, that is a sport concept that has no place in a self-defense art. A true self-defense art utilizes many methodologies toward its ultimate goal. This is an old Chinese tradition. To train in one art while you are training in another suggests you have found a deficiency in one before you have learned enough to know if in fact that deficiency exists.
I look at it as the base techniques that are already established, the groupings according to the type of attack, and how they relate. From there, as others have already taught me, the possibilities are endless.
That is one way of looking at it, but once again I suggest you presume too much. What established base techniques? They changed often.
First off, the only justifications I've seen so far amount to a hill of cliches: "empty your cup," "We must expand and grow," "you should be prepared if...," etc. etc., yada yada.
How about this, alot of the older techniques suck and won't work or have severe weaknesses that should be addressed. If you would like to debate the physics behind I'm all ears.
Now that would be a truly productive discussion for a change.
Second--this "modernization?" Where's it end? First BJJ. Then--what? FMA for sticks? Kali for knives? Something else for guns? It doesn't look like modernization--or rather, it does: the sort of "modernization," that leads to, "planned obsolescence." You know, the endless discovery of new desires
What some call modernization, others call not learning what is already there. I tend to agree with the latter perspective.
This is directed towards everyone out there. How come everything is black or white? Neither of the extremes will be good for the system rather a balance between the traditionalist and expansionalist mindsets should be found.
It shouldnt be. Traditionalist miss the point because everything must grow to avoid becoming obsolete or less relevant. However, expanionalist must recognize their own limitations and not presume they are qualified beyond their own personal use of the art to make changes for others.
Third: a philosophy resting on the discounting of other people's experience and a rewriting of the past. Some of us have repeatedly noted that we trained some of this, "new," stuff right in the old kenpo school; some of us have several times noted that the discussion of all this, "new," "more modern," "external," stuff is right in Mr. Parker's books, or in the sorts of stuff that folks like Larry Tatum are writing.
Quite true. Unfortunately the quality of teachers of the material of Larrys stature are few.
Did Mr. Parker not try to incorporate a number of the ideas, concepts, and principles from other arts into his own. For example didn't he study judo? So if it was good enough for Parker why would it be sacrilege for the rest of us? Also if you think Larry Tatum is teaching BJJ in his school why don't you just run down to Jean Jacque Machado's place in Torrance. I'm sure he'll be accomodating.
It is not a matter of incorporating. The idea of just adding to your kenpo is a false one. Although BJJ has some excellent points, it is a competition art based on judo randori, and therefore as an entity is not compatible with what most feel is kenpos ultimate goal.
Fourth: the notion that somewhere out there is perfection. I insist it's a paranoiac notion--the attempt to fill all gaps, coded in contemporary capitalist terms. You know--more technology, shinier technology, that's the cure for everything. I simply don't expect to become a perfected fighter--don't want to, really. I'd like to become a better martial artist.
The true martial artist knows perfection is a false dream, but embrace instead the pursuit of perfection and in that process constantly improve their knowledge and skill. Of course we call that continuing education. Something some traditonalists seem to avoid, in favor of honoring the tradition itself. We all know what Parker said about traditions that limit growth.
Well I agree. I also don't think we'll ever know everything about our universe or the complex science that governs it, perhaps we should quit exploring and just accept our lowliness. Sounds like a great plan to me. Or wait, perhaps we could learn as much as we can during our journey so that we can pass it on to the next generation to help them with their journey. You know that whole stewardship thing.
Thats what I thought the idea was as well.
Fifth: way too much fascination with the idea of fighting and violence. (See Robert Smith's books.) Fundamental to all this modernizing talk are these ideas: a) the streets are so dangerous that you have to be prepared for anything anytime; b) you have to learn to inflict infinite damage, because the streets are filled with extraordinary fighters; c) it is impossible to talk your way out/avoid the trouble in the first place, d) strangers are the enemy.
As a person who fights with people for a living, and takes them places they dont want to go, I find some martial artist (if taken at their word) are having waaay to many fights and life or death confrontations. At least a lot more than I do. Either they are not being honest, or there is something wrong with the singular common denominator in all those fights.
Sixth--who's going to "take charge," of all this modernization? I smell the Urge to Incorporate here, especially since the modernizers seem to really need to bring the Good News to us heathen. Seems to me like it's doing just fine without a large governing body trying to reign supreme.
That would kill Kenpo as most know it.
What it comes down to is this, in 2 generations no one will care what you, or I, or anyone else thought about the future of kenpo. "They" will, inevitabley, push in the direction of their choosing and there is nothing that can be done about it. Take comfort in the inevitability.
We have nothing to argue about there.
OK, fine.
First off, countering an indictment of cliches such as "empty your cup," with the claim that, "some of the techniques...suck," is hardly what I would call discussion of the issue. It has been my experience that the techs do NOT suck, our understanding/teaching/application of them often sucks. For example, I've seen and read a fair number of folks who run the techs and attacks in a dead fashion, complain that the attack is sterile and the tech dead, and then try to rewrite the tech to compensate for what was their problem in the first place.
Man thats really the truth. Its easier to blame the Kenpo than yourself or even more significantly, the lack of quality instruction.
Third, why exactly do I have to duplicate Mr. Parker's research? Generally, this is called, "reinventing the wheel," and though it is necessary to try and make sure that the particular wheel didn't need reinventing, it is also necessary to realize that the wheel's just fine as it is.
Agreed
As for Mr. Tatum teaching Machado jiu-jitsu--please re-read. This isn't even close to what I wrote. And my running down there so I can get my *** kicked, why would I go play on somebody else's turf, by their rules, and expect anything else? I might also note that my whole point was that I don't plan to be haring hither and yon...
We have had some grapplers want to play with us. The first thing they say is here are the things you cant do. In general, they dont train for combat, but instead to compete. And they do very well in their own venue. I suggest rather than Larry going there, they should go see him if they want to talk combat. Lets use kenpo rules and there is only one rule in kenpo Combat.
The whole premise of this thread in my opinion seems to be whether Kenpo should evolve to meet the needs of the martial artist of the day. If history of Ed Parker tells us anything, change is inevitable simply because as individuals we should be constantly learning and growing. Mr. Parker did this so why shouldnt we as well? Mr. Parker was Also open to outside opinion and thought and Im sure he was influenced by others point of view.
Quite correct, but once again personal growth is a separate issue from creating your own version of Kenpo (or any art) for other people.
A re we in Kenpo so arrogant to believe that we have all the answers and discount the perspective of others? Other opinions may enlighten our journey by providing a unique perspective.
Unique perspectives yes, however all information must be examined in the light of the overall concept of your Kenpo interpretation. Simple addition is not improving your kenpo but diluting it.
I do not believe that Kenpo as a system will ever consolidate into one governing body, nor do I believe it should. There is to many differing opinions and a varying need to tailor the process of learning the system that best fits all the individuals out there.
That is one interpretation that tailors to the individuals taste. All kenpo des not do that.
Everyone has an opinion, and within the martial arts we are all very passionate about it. Thankfully, there is an abundance of associations each with their own method of teaching principles of Kenpo. Some feel that the many splintered associations weakens Kenpo, I say it strengthens it. There is something out there for everyone and the uniqueness of each makes us all stronger.
It doesnt make kenpo stronger, however it may support the individual in their own personal pursuit and preferences. However most Kenpo organizations have a shelf life of about 3-5 successful years before they begin to crumble. Its always been that way, and is happening as we speak. J Parker lost people all the time, just as others are rapidly doing now.
I threw out a question earlier regarding the base of Kenpo. The techniques within the Web of knowledge are simply tools that help instill the principles and concepts within the individual. Change is interesting because if we follow the principles of Kenpo; again I refer to Mr Parker, there could be ways of changing the sequences in the techniques to solidify and economize a students rate of learning the principles of Kenpo. Principles are the base of our system in my opinion.
Most commercial kenpo has very few principles, but instead has a series of conceptual rules, along with any exception that you may tailor that works for you. Principles? Im afraid some take that word way too literally with most teachers.
Its the principles within Kenpo that act as a guide, that not only help me understand my motion within Kenpo, but the motion contained within other martial arts as well, BJJ in my personal case.
Remember all kenpo is not motion based. Hebler, LaBounty, Herring, Sullivan, German, etc do not do motion based kenpo.
I remember hearing how Bruce Lee would come to Ed Parker and even though Mr Parker may not have been familiar With the sequences that Lee was doing, he never the less could apply and explain the principles. Let be me clear that the principles do not change, the basics of physics for example are consistent, but our methods of explaining and the vehicles for understanding them should.
In Parkers case that was true, but principles change when they are conceptually and philosophically driven in a different direction. Additionally, very little of Newtonian Physics translates to motion based kenpo, which despite all the infinite movement is still bound by anatomical constraints when maximum effectiveness is a goal.
Once Master Parker passed away, alot of people broke off and created new organizations. While he was alive, he was able to keep things the way he wanted to do them.
Im afraid that was never true. It is myth that Kenpo fell apart after Parker died. In fact a significantly greater number of prominent people left during his martial arts life than after he passed away. Many stayed in his organization but had de facto left and only remained affiliated with Parker for rank and financial reasons, but really already doing their own thing. Some even had their own patch (with Parkers approval) and never even used the I.K.K.A patch.
You could probably take 3 of his top students, ask them to perform and explain a tech. and you will no doubt get 3 very different responses.
..based on what he wanted to teach them as individuals.
Parker changed Kenpo even from the way he first learned it. He made it more up to date with todays times. In my opinion, the only way to keep an art growing and up to date, is with change. Sometimes the changes are for the better, sometimes they are not.
If adding a trapping movement from JKD or a grappling move from BJJ is the answer, then I see nothing wrong with doing it.
Addition is not improving your kenpo. Other arts approach things philosophically different. Mixing philosophies rarely if ever works. That why other arts (among other reasons) exist. They have a different approach or focus in their training. You cant import information without an overall examination of how something may or may not fit within the overall system and its philosophical approach, and then determine how, when, and where the methodology should be placed for dissemination in context.
Several of the old IKKA club defenses were TESTED out. Mr. Mills had a club in his right hand, resting on his right shoulder. The guy who did the defenses was, I believe, a 5th at the time (wearing a lot of protective gear of course) and didn't stop the club once. All he had to do was shoot in a do the first block, and he was never able to do so.
I presume he was a Paul Mills 5th? I only say this because that would mean that Paul dictated the parameters of the assault as he saw it, and the student would go along. That scenario in my opinion is incorrect for the technique.
First, most dont make a distinction between a stick and a club and that is an important place to make a distinction. One of the things that by definition describes a club is ..an elongated cylindrical item that has such significant heft, that the weight itself is what transforms the object into an effective bludgeon. Therefore a stick that could be whipped would not qualify. Further the attack would not start with the club on the shoulder. That would presume that he had to acquire it previously and walk to within range to attack you with it while at the ready position. While you of course observed with your thumb up your butt.
Anyway, in my attack scenario, the club/bludgeon is acquired from the ground first, and its required weight will cause the attacker to alter their body mechanics by necessity to raise it above their shoulders and propel it toward the intended victim with one arm. Once this action is committed, the weight of the bludgeon itself would preclude a change of trajectory or orbit. Lastly we practice with the bludgeon striking the floor with a significant follow through as the technique was designed and taught to me by Parker. Of course you must consider the level this technique is taught and the lessons you are attempting to impart to the beginning student. Once a realistic scenario is prescribed, students have no problem with this technique.
Those techniques are not old and any test is only as good as the realistic parameters dictated for examination and evaluation. At least that is my point of view.
Gun defenses: How many of you that practice these techniques have ever actually fired a weapon? Probably a few, but the overwhelming majority has not. {DO not try this kids} The last time I was at the gun range, a friend of mine was nice enough to run a drill for me. Facing 12 o'clock he aimed his 9mm to about 1:30 and told me that he wouldn't fire until he saw me move (oh yeah, I didn't have ear protection on at the time). When I lunged in the flash, and concusive "boom" from the bullet leaving the barrel resulted in an extremely disoriented defense ( i.e. almost none at all). Now granted that was the first time I had ever done that, and with a little practice I could probably do a lot better, but my point is that the vast majority who have never had the gun go off by their head would probably react just like I did. Am I advocating that we all go deaf from gun training? No, but there is something to be said for a realistic understanding of what you're up against.
We visit the range regularly, and understand the necessity of realistic handgun training. We also train for rifles and shotguns, and semi-auto handguns held high and sideways street style. A significant number of my students carry firearms of ALL type on them and in their vehicles everyday professionally. I understand what youre saying and I agree.
I met a man here in Spokane who trained in a style of Kenpo that broke away in the 60s. He actualy said to me that Mr parker had it toguether in the 60s but sort of lost touch with the reality of the street in the 70s.
Mr. Parker didnt lose touch with the reality of the streets, but instead moved to commercial motion based kenpo for proliferation of a version of his art, which necessitated removing and/or leaving a considerable amount of information out of the conceptual design. Instead he shifted the responsibility to instructors who, for the most part, dropped the ball. Mostly because the students with no real world experience who came through the ranks ended up being its teachers. Trust me, Parker knew what reality was and continued to work on it. Dont confuse what was taught in some of the schools with what Ed Parker himself actually would do, and did, in a confrontation.
Pehaps he has a point with some over-sophistication that may or may not be going on; however, I realized I was talking to a person that didn't even want to look at what Mr. Parker had been working on at the time of his death. His mind was made up and closed thank you very much. I listened to him bad mouth my school a little and politly left his studio.
Well apparently he had been around long enough so you might have listened to him. You never know what you might have learned. Obviously he survived.
In response, the first thing I'd write is this: give me an example of a technique, describe the attack, tell me why you think it doesn't work, and--if we know the same Parker techs--I can most likely tell you how to make the thing work fine. If not, I'll check with Clyde--who reamed myself and others today in class on just this issue...I can personally tell you that Glancing Salute, Clutching Feathers, Glancing Spear, Circling Fans, and Securing the Storm freakin' work.
Yes they do.
Moreover, it has been my experience that the folks who argue that "the technique doesn't work," are wrong. The way they do it doesn't work...and they (myself included) have a failure of imagination concerning figuring the damn thing out. It has also been my experience that some folks throw out chunks of the kenpo system on the grounds that they are outmoded or don't work, then turn about and claim that kenpo is missing all sorts of stuff.
The system is of a piece, folks. You throw out techs, forms, sets, you miss out on the way things are interconnected. Then, sure, things don't work right.
Funny, how the kenpo always seems to get the blame. But some seem to be quite happy where they are and do not feel a need to study Tae kwon dodo to improve their kenpo. Some need to take a long hard look at the guy taking their money and giving out those belts.
Evolving forward in Kenpo is a complex dilemma. I agree with Rob in that we Need to be careful how to proceed so that we are not changing for the sack of being different. At the same time I believe that we should not be bound by tradition and not do something because thats the way it is in the manual. Mr. Parker was not a traditionalist and in fact he was a rebel of sorts within the martial art community. Even while he was still alive he was often criticized for adjusting the system through the years, some of the loudest came from within Kenpo itself.
Logic must be our guide as we train.
I couldnt have said it better.
Any time someone grabs you, either by the hair, shirt, or head or arm lock, it is considered grappling....standing grappling. So, it does contain some form of grappling, just nothing on the ground.
Stop that! Stop extending your experiences with your teacher and kenpo to everybody else. Say you dont do nothing on the ground. I thought we established the diversity of kenpo is as broad as its competent teachers?
Working a technique that avoids a grappling situation IS NOT GRAPPLING. Yes they can be effective against a grappler, but for the most part they teach that strikes can aid you in your grappling. Deciding that Ed Parker learned judo so you wouldn't have to is about the most rediculous thing I've heard in quite a while. Hey I got one of those philisophical questions. Would William James think you were better off doing an in depth study of grappling concepts?
So you suggest that when a person tries to grapple with you and you successfully prevent it, then youre not grappling. Well thats because youre using a grappling philosophy/description in a Kenpo scenario. The idea that youre not grappling unless you get down on the floor is misleading, however if you choose to use their definition that is fine but say so. But you cant come to Kenpo and then define kenpo actions by what you do in another activity that is philosophically different from kenpo.
Further, what I wrote didn't have anything to do with learning or not learning judo. It had to do with the repeated claim that none of the stuff I've worked over years is in kenpo. It had to do with the repeated claim that Mr. Parker left kenpo somehow deeply flawed, incomplete, full of vulnerabilities, and that the way to handle this was to go learn all the other arts in which kenpo was deficient. I reject these claims, on grounds I've previously stated.
I reject them as well. What Parker DID do is leave some INSTRUCTORS deeply flawed, incomplete, full of vulnerabilities for various reasons, most of them at their own choosing.
Come on, guys. Those of us on these forums have about as much chance of competing on a professional level as the man in the moon. That isn't a reflection necessarily on what we study, or even how we study--it's just a recognition of reality.
And kenpo was never designed for any type of professional competition.
Ed Parker did leave Kenpo incomplete. He was constantly changing, growing, learning and being enlighted.
No more incomplete than any man has left any art incomplete in his lifetime.
It only stands to reason that as he did so that he incorporate this new found knowledge within his system of Kenpo. I learned many different variations to many of the techniques through the years. Mr. Parker himself had a way of changing things. All that I am saying that as I grow and mature as a martial artist, I too must incorporate my new found knowledge into everything I do as well.
That is good just dont call it advancing Kenpo. Instead call it what it is, Your personal evolution of how you do things and a dilution or homogenization of your kenpo.
I have been training in Kenpo for 17 yrs. It however is not the only art I study. I go to the other arts to fill a void that Kenpo has.
There we go blaming the kenpo again. Thats not fair. All of us have not had the same kenpo experience as you thereforte your "holes" are not mine.
When Mr. Parker learned Kenpo in the 50's, few people knew Karate, few people knew Judo, nobody knew BJJ.
Clearly you make a distinction between BJJ as if it is somehow different form other grappling. It is not. It is however marketed quite well. All fights go to the ground? No they dont. The thing that separates or makes a distinction in grappling is not what it is called but, the rules used. The rules will alway dictate what it looks like.
There were boxers, wrestlers, and brawlers. Kenpo is effective against these types of attackers.
So Kenpo is effective against boxers, wrestlers, and street brawlers, but not BJJ? Well Im glad to hear that because kenpo people in general dont compete, and if they do they probably will be precluded from using kenpo techniques.
Since Mr. Parker learned Kenpo, Karate, Kung Fu, TKD, Kick-boxing and JKD grew rapidly. Mr. Parker added to and refined Kenpo in the 60's, 70's, and 80's until his death. Since his death, BJJ techniques have been combined with wrestling and kickboxing to create a new style of fighting usually known as MMA.
[/qute]
Sorry, bit that stuff has been around for more years than youve been alive. It is not new. Drop Gene LaBell a line and hell tell you stories about things before you were born.
A large portion of this debate can be boiled down to these questions: Does Kenpo adequately address the new positions, attacks and fighting styles that have emerged since Mr. Parker's death? Does it do so effectively? Does it do so in a superior way? Should it?
Yes on all counts. But I dont consider a mount a new position. The first time I saw it was at recess by the schoolyard bully, who stopped using it when another kid smacked him across the head with a trashcan lid because he was fighting his friend.
Nature of Kenpo as an Art: This is an excellent question. I think it may be unanswerable and that is why there is more debate about Kenpo on this and other forums than any other forum. Is Kenpo "complete"? Is Kenpo a "Do" or a "Jutsu"? That is one reason why we are having this discussion.
Commercial kenpo is a do with the emphasis shifted to your way to be effective because it is your responsibility, and that is all that matters.
That is why there are so many Kenpo associations (well one reason anyway). That is why so many are trying to bridge Kenpo with other arts. That is why you and so many others are looking deeper into Kenpo.
Obviously that is not a bad thing.
b) Teachability: Another excellent question. No easy answers, but if Kenpo can be taught, and these other arts can be taught, then why not Kenpo with other techniques?
c) Linking it all together: That hasn't happened yet. It may not happen without a genious as great as mr. Parker's.
Now youre talking. Everybody since Bruce Lee thinks they can create their own art and fix kenpo. I suggest they be content with making it work for themselves first, then hopefully they wont have enough time to teach.
Man surveillance is boring.
