Loyalty to the EPAK system?

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Great thread James! Oddly enough, I had a conversation with Clyde last night and we were speaking of people making changes in the art and rather than running off and create something because "X" move, technique, etc. would not work for them, try to find out how you can make it work and perhaps where the link to understanding the move, isn't being made. I'll address the above comments below.

1) Now, its probably not in the best interest to make a change if the material is not understood. I may have a hard time making Squatting Sacrafice work, so should I go and change it, creating a 'new' technique or should I find someone who can show me how to make it work? Now if I was teaching someone and they were having a difficult time, due to a height disadvantage, perhaps, they could make a slight adjustment in footwork, etc. to compensate, but they're still not changing the tech. per se.

2) Should people create something new? There are people out there that have created new techs. and dropped old ones.

3) Yes he did. I'm sure he made changes from the way he learned.

4) Agreed

5) Would he still be considered loyal?

6) True

7) Thats a good point. Things are always evolving. Cars, medicine, research, etc. Maybe those that made a change were on to something.

8) So if its not broke don't fix it, so to speak.

We all have to go with the hand that was dealt to us. Unless we move to an area, such as the Meca of Kenpo..So Cal...we just have to do the best we can with our training. SL4, commercial, motion, or whatever else we want to call it, what matters most, IMHO, is, is what we're doing working for us?

Good stuff MJS. Long time since we chatted on here. Here are some of my thoughts about changing kenpo. I originally posted this on KenpoNet:

Mr. Parker's creativity and ingenuity aside.... He added things to his expression of the arts (termed: Kenpo) and deleted them as well as he saw fit during his lifetime. Who is to say that someone else cannot do the same? Mr. Parker most certainly did not keep everything he learned from Chow. So following that example there will and possibly (depending on your veiwpoint) should be those that don't keep everything they learned from Mr. Parker.

American Kenpo is like any other system. It's applied information or a tool. If someone decides to change something it isn't them failing the information as a person cannot fail a tool, the tool can fail a person however. But with Kenpo this isn't the case. If someone decides to change, delete or add anything they are finding a different way to use their "tool" and may be considering new tools as well.

there is a saying my original Martial Arts instructor used to say: "I've probably forgotten more martial arts in my time than I'll ever get to teach you in my lifetime. I wish it weren't that way, but that's how life works."

Who knows how much Mr. Parker may have "forgetten" in passing along American Kenpo?

Also here is another way of looking at it. All kenpoists of a certain level are familiar with the equation formula with regards to technique alteration, tailoring and formulating. How about applying it to the system as a whole. Prefix the system requirements (like the yellow belt chart was a prefix), suffix the system requirements (like many of the extensions were a suffix), insert requirements into the system (like many of the "form techniques" on 2nd and 3rd Brown were), add requirements to the system (like alot of the "2" sets were), delete requirements from the system (like intellectual departure, the original knife form/set and a host other requirements were) rearrange the order of requirements in the system (32, 24, 16, etc.), alter the moves of the system (look how the moves changed since the book "Kenpo Karate"), adjust the moves of the system (Also see earlier books and manuals). There are those that have thought this way for years, many but not all of which are 1st Gen. Kenpo's history of changes and versions would indicate that Mr. Parker thought this way as well.

So the questions are:

1) Are people changing "Kenpo" because they can't get it to work or because they feel they can make it a little (or alot) better than Mr. Parker left it (Just like Mr. Parker did with what his instructor left him)?

and

2) Are people resistant to change based solely on Kenpo "working as is" or based more on just remaining "loyal" to what Mr. Parker did?

Only time will answer these questions and even then the answers will probably never have a concrete answer.

 

[Seig]

Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:

1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).

You're slightly off here. Mr. Parker encouraged instructors to tailor the art to their students. You wouldn't have a cook tailor your suit would you? This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.

2) Mr. Parker also openly told people to be as creative as possible. Creativity doesn't have the same limitations as 'tailoring'. Something can be created "from scratch" and therefore be very different from the "starting material".

Did he tell people to be creative or innovative? There's a distinct difference.

3) Mr. Parker never remained "traditional" and altered his sytem several times.

Really? How many of his close students such as Doc, Sigung, Mr. Trejo, etc refer to him as Ed? Altering the system is not becoming non traditional. Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way."

4) Mr. Parker didn't remain 'loyal' to the system he studied or EPAK would have never been created.

If you really believe that, I suggest you ask your teacher to explain the Parker Crest to you. Loyalty and subservience are not the same thing.

5) Mr. Parker's son studies Kenpo from what he has referred to in print as a "progressive source" and not his father's original version. The term 'progressive' is particularly powerful in this instance.

You have made a point here and let it dangle. Mr. Parker, Jr. has also stated that the martial aspect of Kenpo is not his passion. He prefers to be the "ambassador" and the "graphic" art part of the art.

6) Kenpo is just information. How does one remain loyal to information? Information is supposed to serve mankind, not vice versa.

Kenpo is just information? I love it. Caviar is just food. You remain loyal by understanding what you are studying, not just knowing of it. How does one earn a loyalty bonus when trading in a car? By trading in the same brand they are buying. You stay loyal to Kenpo by continuing to study it.

7) Kenpo is often referred to as a fighting science or technology. Most of the best science and technology on the planet constantly changes and improves. If being Loyal means never changing, how does Kenpo keep up?

Science and technology do advance, but guess what, the underlying methodolgy and basics do not change. Try telling your teacher that a horse stance is useless.

8) Some of the best ideas have remained largely unchanged for centuries. Examples: The wheel, simple machines, pulleys and levers, the arch, etc. Is EPAK in the same category?

Obviously not, and your examples are flawed. The wheel has changed, the shape is essentially the same, but the configuration changes radically. What simple machines? Pulleys and levers have been redisgned based on a founding principle, for example, the compound bow. The arch serves a different purpose in everything. Is it decorative or architectural? Without understandanding that, you have only half a true statement, which makes it false. Epak follows this pattern, if you don't understand the underlying foundation, anything you build on it is weak.

With all that said what does loyalty to EPAK truly mean? To me I remain loyal by teaching the curriculum MOSTLY as I learned it but with additions that I feel are useful in certain places. I don't, however, delete any material. I only add it. But I don't feel this is an adequate way to describe the loyalty.

One of our pledges mentions remaing loyal to the Organization and my Instructor, THAT is how I remain loyal to the system. By teaching what I was taught while furthering my own learning.
What do you mean mostly? What do you add? Why?

What does 'loyalty to the EPAK system' mean to you?

Asked and answered.

 

[Flying Crane]

This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.

Of course everyone will disagree on who is "qualified" to do so.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising.

There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated.

Good post, Michael, especially these bits.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

You're slightly off here. Mr. Parker encouraged instructors to tailor the art to their students. You wouldn't have a cook tailor your suit would you? This implies that the tailoring be done by someone qualified to do so.

Did he tell people to be creative or innovative? There's a distinct difference.

Really? How many of his close students such as Doc, Sigung, Mr. Trejo, etc refer to him as Ed? Altering the system is not becoming non traditional. Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way."

If you really believe that, I suggest you ask your teacher to explain the Parker Crest to you. Loyalty and subservience are not the same thing.

You have made a point here and let it dangle. Mr. Parker, Jr. has also stated that the martial aspect of Kenpo is not his passion. He prefers to be the "ambassador" and the "graphic" art part of the art.

Kenpo is just information? I love it. Caviar is just food. You remain loyal by understanding what you are studying, not just knowing of it. How does one earn a loyalty bonus when trading in a car? By trading in the same brand they are buying. You stay loyal to Kenpo by continuing to study it.

Science and technology do advance, but guess what, the underlying methodolgy and basics do not change. Try telling your teacher that a horse stance is useless.
Obviously not, and your examples are flawed. The wheel has changed, the shape is essentially the same, but the configuration changes radically. What simple machines? Pulleys and levers have been redisgned based on a founding principle, for example, the compound bow. The arch serves a different purpose in everything. Is it decorative or architectural? Without understandanding that, you have only half a true statement, which makes it false. Epak follows this pattern, if you don't understand the underlying foundation, anything you build on it is weak.
One of our pledges mentions remaing loyal to the Organization and my Instructor, THAT is how I remain loyal to the system. By teaching what I was taught while furthering my own learning.
What do you mean mostly? What do you add? Why?
Asked and answered.

1. I have seminar footage of parker telling people to tailor the art "to themselves"

2. Same seminar footage where he uses the terms creative and innovative

3. Two of the seniors you mentioned stated in my presence that Mr. Parker prefered "Ed", when relaying their memories of Mr. Parker too me at seminars.

4. "Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way." That's why I quoted "traditional" because that's how it's commonly used.

5. there was nothig to let "dangle" the point was made and left for people to have something to think about without a "leading question"

6. Your "car loyalty" analogy parallels several Kenpoists denouncing of cross-training. Several Seniors (Planas come to mind first) Cross train.

7. Exactly my thoughts.

8. The examples aren't flawed, it's for the purposes of discussing your answer to number 7.

9. You read my post and "assumed" my views. The points I posted are not my views but are for the purposes of promoting thought and discussion.


Good Answers, minus the assumptions.

Respect and Salute!

 

[Seig]

1. I have seminar footage of parker telling people to tailor the art "to themselves"

I've seen the same footage, He was addressing a room full of black belts.

2. Same seminar footage where he uses the terms creative and innovative

Yep, I saw that too, and again, they have distinctly different meanings.

3. Two of the seniors you mentioned stated in my presence that Mr. Parker prefered "Ed", when relaying their memories of Mr. Parker too me at seminars.

Yes, he did. They have told me the same thing. Ask them if any of them took him up in it.

4. "Tradition is based on etiquette and is a term that is often used incorrectly in martial arts. A martial art is only traditional if you ask why we do something and the answer you get is "because we have always done it that way." That's why I quoted "traditional" because that's how it's commonly used.

Agreed

5. there was nothig to let "dangle" the point was made and left for people to have something to think about without a "leading question"

But that's exaclty what you have done. You have lead people in to thinking of Mr. Parker, jr. as an absolute authority on the art.

6. Your "car loyalty" analogy parallels several Kenpoists denouncing of cross-training. Several Seniors (Planas come to mind first) Cross train.

The only denouncement I do of cross training is by someone that doesn't know and understand their base art, Mr. Planas does not fit that example.

7. Exactly my thoughts.

Cool

8. The examples aren't flawed, it's for the purposes of discussing your answer to number 7.

I still disagree but that's ok.

9. You read my post and "assumed" my views. The points I posted are not my views but are for the purposes of promoting thought and discussion.

No, I "assumed" nothing. I responded to exactly what I read, exactly the way I would respond to anyone who was seeking information.
I occassionally come across harsher than intended, and if that's the case, my apologies.

Good Answers, minus the assumptions.

Respect and Salute!

:asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

The only denouncement I do of cross training is by someone that doesn't know and understand their base art, Mr. Planas does not fit that example.


:asian:

Again, how is it determined that someone knows and understands their base art well enough to justify cross training? I think that is an ambiguous determination, something that few people will fully agree on. There are many levels of understanding of an art, and where does the magic line lie, once you cross this line it is OK for you to cross train, or begin tailoring or altering the art?

I believe that ultimately it is up to the individual to make this decision for himself. After all, once you learn something, it belongs to you, for you to do with as you wish. It is only knowledge, not a material possession that somebody can take away from you. Ultimately, it needs to be useful for you. Only you can determine if it is.

Of course everyone would benefit from having a good teacher to guide them to a higher level. BUt that is not always possible for many reasons. It could be location, lack of teachers who you trust or believe they have something to offer, or other obligations in life that limit your ability to train with others so you make due as best as you can on your own. In these cases, one must be one's own task master, and that includes making your own decisions about things. If you spend your whole life always looking to others to tell you what to do and to legitimize what you do, then you have not really learned anything besides learning how to follow others and not think for yourself. At some point people need to be able to stand on their own two feet.

Of course different people have different abilities and experiences, and this makes some more qualified than others to make these decisions. A complete newbie, with 6 months training is probably much less qualified than the 10, or 20, or 50 year veteran. But where is the line drawn? How do we decide when one can make a change or begin cross training? It can't necessarily be based on a certain amount of time or rank achieved, because those are no guarantee of ability or knowledge. It is a tough question to answer, and I don't pretend to have an answer beyond saying that if you have trained hard, done your best to understand things, and haven't found anyone who can help you understand things any better than you do, and you still see problems with some of the material, then you are ready to make some changes.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Michael:

Excellent point, and unfortunately, we will never have an agreeable yardstick for what constitutes a "good enough" understanding of the art to justify tailoring. I started a tailoring journey, sure I had the experience necessary to warrant it. Since then, I've had to go back to some ideas, and re-think the conclusions I originally drew, ceding their "incorrectness" as I go.

Example: The kenpo techs and forms include some pretty standard minor/major blocking combinations. Meaning, before an outward block, with one hand, the opposite hand will throw an inward block or parry. I was under the assumption in an early chapter, that this was wasted motion. Silly. Next chapter, I developed a crush on the inward/outward parry/block combo as a means of slipping up and past the attacking weapon to get to the bad guy. I threw out the inward parry/upward block as being silly, because the upward block was, to me, for meeting descending attacks...so what was the parry touching? Then I meet Doc, who shows me that -- against a stright punch -- the inward parry sends one message to the opponents neurology about a direction to shore up against, and the upward block sends a conflicting message, and the combination of the two frags the other guys stability. Now, just using this simple set that's in many forms, you've effectivelt misaligned the bad guy, and further attacks from him will lack the muscle congruency necessary to really make it hurt.

So, in believing I was qualified to start my own mods after 25+ years, I was wrong. I didn't understand all the intricacies and implications of the moves I had thrown out, and was not qualified to make those decisions.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Seig]

Again, how is it determined that someone knows and understands their base art well enough to justify cross training? I think that is an ambiguous determination, something that few people will fully agree on.

Not really, if I'm still correcting your punching technique, your neutral bow, or your horse stance, you are not ready to cross train. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

There are many levels of understanding of an art, and where does the magic line lie, once you cross this line it is OK for you to cross train, or begin tailoring or altering the art?

No, there are only three levels of understanding. Once you know your art it is probably ok to start branching out a little to see if you really understand.

I believe that ultimately it is up to the individual to make this decision for himself.

Unfortunately that's true. That's why the world is full of incredibly stupid people wearing belts that are an embarassment to the rest of the people wearing the same color belt.

After all, once you learn something, it belongs to you, for you to do with as you wish. It is only knowledge, not a material possession that somebody can take away from you. Ultimately, it needs to be useful for you. Only you can determine if it is.

There is a statement I can agree with, mostly. Only knowledge....ouch....

Of course everyone would benefit from having a good teacher to guide them to a higher level. BUt that is not always possible for many reasons. It could be location, lack of teachers who you trust or believe they have something to offer, or other obligations in life that limit your ability to train with others so you make due as best as you can on your own.

Sorry, that is a false statement. It is possible, no matter what. My teacher lives on one coast, and I on the other. Guess what, I have a contemporary in Australia! We don't let distance be an excuse, we sought quality instruction and are willing to pay the price to get it. Don't confuse a teacher with a training partner, it can get you severely hurt.

In these cases, one must be one's own task master,

One should always be their own task master. I don't care how many times a teacher corrects you, if you don't practice it, you're wasting his/her time and yours.

and that includes making your own decisions about things.

That's called being an adult and has nothing to do with the validity of cross training or "tailoring" an art.

If you spend your whole life always looking to others to tell you what to do and to legitimize what you do, then you have not really learned anything besides learning how to follow others and not think for yourself.

They call that co-dependency and if that is what someone is really doing, they need more help than a martial arts instructor can give them.

At some point people need to be able to stand on their own two feet.

So you think it is beneficial then to send a yellow belt out into the world thinking they have the answers? Again, this goes back to independence versus co-dependency and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Of course different people have different abilities and experiences, and this makes some more qualified than others to make these decisions. A complete newbie, with 6 months training is probably much less qualified than the 10, or 20, or 50 year veteran. But where is the line drawn?

Why does there have to be a hard and fast line? I have a brown belt that I think should cross train and a black belt that I think should not. Why should there be a hard and fast rule? I believe there should be guidelines, but not hard and fast determinations.

How do we decide when one can make a change or begin cross training? It can't necessarily be based on a certain amount of time or rank achieved, because those are no guarantee of ability or knowledge.

Now that is a great statement! :asian:

It is a tough question to answer, and I don't pretend to have an answer beyond saying that if you have trained hard, done your best to understand things, and haven't found anyone who can help you understand things any better than you do, and you still see problems with some of the material, then you are ready to make some changes.

Starting with either the way you approach the material or the way it is presented to you. Talk to your teacher first.

 

[Seig]

Michael:

Excellent point, and unfortunately, we will never have an agreeable yardstick for what constitutes a "good enough" understanding of the art to justify tailoring. I started a tailoring journey, sure I had the experience necessary to warrant it. Since then, I've had to go back to some ideas, and re-think the conclusions I originally drew, ceding their "incorrectness" as I go.

Example: The kenpo techs and forms include some pretty standard minor/major blocking combinations. Meaning, before an outward block, with one hand, the opposite hand will throw an inward block or parry. I was under the assumption in an early chapter, that this was wasted motion. Silly. Next chapter, I developed a crush on the inward/outward parry/block combo as a means of slipping up and past the attacking weapon to get to the bad guy. I threw out the inward parry/upward block as being silly, because the upward block was, to me, for meeting descending attacks...so what was the parry touching? Then I meet Doc, who shows me that -- against a stright punch -- the inward parry sends one message to the opponents neurology about a direction to shore up against, and the upward block sends a conflicting message, and the combination of the two frags the other guys stability. Now, just using this simple set that's in many forms, you've effectivelt misaligned the bad guy, and further attacks from him will lack the muscle congruency necessary to really make it hurt.

So, in believing I was qualified to start my own mods after 25+ years, I was wrong. I didn't understand all the intricacies and implications of the moves I had thrown out, and was not qualified to make those decisions.

Regards,

Dave

Hey Dave,
I bet you and the rest of the gang would agree with this, "If you think it's 'Good Enough', take out extra insurance."

 

[Flying Crane]

Michael:

So, in believing I was qualified to start my own mods after 25+ years, I was wrong. I didn't understand all the intricacies and implications of the moves I had thrown out, and was not qualified to make those decisions.

Regards,

Dave

Oh, I dunno if you were really wrong. You did the best that you could based on your understanding, and I really really can't find a lot of fault with that. You then found someone who could help you understand it better, and that made you re-think what you did, but that doesn't mean it was wasted time. The exercise was worthwhile, and it probably developed your critical eye in the process. The point is, you were thinking for yourself and that is something that I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

Had you not found someone who could lead you to a higher level, then I would say you were definitely doing the right thing. Like I have stated, having a good teacher to lead you is certainly best. But lacking that, make your own decisions. Under those circumstances, what you come up with would work better for you than keeping with something that you can't seem to get to work, or that doesn't make sense to you.

Nobody's vision in the martial arts is perfect, certainly not perfect for everyone. Perhaps some people have a better vision than others, but that doesn't negate the value of what others do. Who are the really "great" people in the arts is a matter of opinion, and not everyone is in a position, or even has the desire to train with the "greats". Ultimately we all do our best because that is all we can do.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK, I still haven't figured out how to properly split up a quote from a previous post, so I'll just bold everything from the prior post and comment after.

Not really, if I'm still correcting your punching technique, your neutral bow, or your horse stance, you are not ready to cross train. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

Nobody reaches true perfection. Everyone has room to improve. By this logic, nobody should ever cross train.

I agree with your point that when people flutter from one art to another without taking the time and putting in the effort to truly understand the art, they just accumulate a bunch of poorly learned junk. But there are many different reasons to cross train, all legitimate reasons. Could simply be personal preference or interest, not necessarily because you feel your original art has holes that need to be filled. That being said, I have had some "ah-ha" moments while training in Wing Chun, when the lightbulb went on and I realized what I was doing in Wing Chun helped me understand something that I had learned in kenpo. A certain technique was very similar, but the approach was slightly different and that was all I needed to suddenly grasp the usefulness of it.

No, there are only three levels of understanding. Once you know your art it is probably ok to start branching out a little to see if you really understand.

Well, I don't know how you define three levels. I was thinking more on the line that every day of training can bring you to a new level, subtle and gradual tho it may be. I don't have a way to measure a specific level except in hindsight, when you realize that you have progressed from where you were 3 years prior, but you didn't realize it while it was happening.

Unfortunately that's true. That's why the world is full of incredibly stupid people wearing belts that are an embarassment to the rest of the people wearing the same color belt.

True, a lot of high rank on people who shouldn't wear it. This is in part the fault of teachers who are too business minded and give out quick rank to keep their client base happy, and also in part to people who give themselves rank because they don't have a teacher to give it to them. Maybe some of these people actually deserve the rank if it could be measured objectively, but I suspect many do not deserve the rank, even tho they may have solid skills. Every schmoe with solid skills does not deserve to be a 10th degree, just because they decide they want it. But not everyone who decides to take an art in their own direction start giving themselves promotions. Some of us are content with the rank we earned almost 20 years ago, and have no interest in giving ourselves further rank. Personally, I would never assume additional rank on my own, and would only accept it from a good teacher with whom I trained extensively.

There is a statement I can agree with, mostly. Only knowledge....ouch....

I don't mean to downplay the value of knowledge. My point is just that once given, it cannot be taken away. One cannot exercise complete control over what others do with knowledge that has been given. Once knowledge is passed on, there has to be a certain willingness to relinquish control. This is another reason why I think many commercial schools are a mistake. This kind of knowledge shouldn't be passed on to just anybody who walks in the door with an open check book.

Sorry, that is a false statement. It is possible, no matter what. My teacher lives on one coast, and I on the other. Guess what, I have a contemporary in Australia! We don't let distance be an excuse, we sought quality instruction and are willing to pay the price to get it. Don't confuse a teacher with a training partner, it can get you severely hurt.

I appreciate your dedication to your teacher. But this is not possible for everyone. If you can maintain this relationship to train with the teacher you really want to be with, you are one of the lucky ones.

One should always be their own task master. I don't care how many times a teacher corrects you, if you don't practice it, you're wasting his/her time and yours.That's called being an adult and has nothing to do with the validity of cross training or "tailoring" an art.

Agreed, if you don't practice on your own you will never progress. It is being an adult, but I see many people in martial arts schools who do not train on their own, and the structure of the school encourages them to be in class every day for training. In my opinion, this encourages them to be dependent and they never learn to think or train on their own. This mentality can last, and, again in my opinion, creates a bunch of emotionally stunted individuals when it comes to their training. But deciding to tailor or cross train is also being an adult. Once you are comfortable with your own training, you can become comfortable making these decisions as well. I am not suggesting that people should try to actively undermine their instructor, if they are still with him. But I am suggesting that people can reach a level where they can make this decision for themselves, and I don't think they necessarily need to be a 10th dan grand master, or some other rarely achieved level before they do this.

So you think it is beneficial then to send a yellow belt out into the world thinking they have the answers?

I never ever made such a claim. In fact, later in my post I suggested that this would be someone with little qualification to do this.

Why does there have to be a hard and fast line? I have a brown belt that I think should cross train and a black belt that I think should not. Why should there be a hard and fast rule? I believe there should be guidelines, but not hard and fast determinations.

This is exactly my position. Some people are ready surprisingly quickly due to natural talent, intellect, whatever. Others are never ready no matter how long they train. there is no fast, hard line. This is why I think the ultimate decision comes from the individual. Where else can it come from? people like Mr. Parker did exactly this, and made that decision for themselves. Not everyone is on a level with Mr. Parker, I don't pretend to suggest that. But without the willingness of people to do that, the arts do not grow. Probably much of what gets developed by the average person is not very good, and it dies with the inventor. But some things are good and get passed on. But neither do I believe that someone has to be on the same level as Mr. Parker in order to be willing to do this. Mr. Parker was not always at the level he achieved by the end of his life. He began making changes decades before, while his own skill and understanding continued to grow.

Now that is a great statement! :asian:

Something we can agree upon!

Starting with either the way you approach the material or the way it is presented to you. Talk to your teacher first.

I live halfway across the country from my kenpo teacher. He has drifted away from the martial arts, and no longer trains. I keep in touch with him, and I have discussed my changes with him and he is in agreement that the changes were necessary. He may not agree with every change that I made, but he saw the need for the changes overall and he trusts me to make decisions for myself. We are neither high ranking nor influential people in kenpo or the martial arts in general. We are just a couple guys doing what we do the best that we can, and not afraid to make changes that we feel are appropriate. Again, my point of reference is from Tracys, not EPAK, so none of my comments should be taken as a judgement of the material in the EPAK system. But I think the idea of being willing to make changes is a common theme that we can still discuss.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I've seen the same footage, He was addressing a room full of black belts.

No, I "assumed" nothing. I responded to exactly what I read, exactly the way I would respond to anyone who was seeking information.
I occassionally come across harsher than intended, and if that's the case, my apologies.

:asian:

I have somewhere around a dozen or more tapes of Ed Parker Seminars and on several he says the same things. How can you be sure you've seen "the same footage" as the one I was talking about without knowing which tapes I have in my possession? That is an assumption. And no apologies necessary as no offense was taken. Just needed to clarify as you seemed to have "mistaken" some discussion points for my viewpoints and others reading may have done the same.

Respect and Salute. :asian:

 

[Seig]

James,
I'll tell you what, my instructor comes out to see me twice a year. You're only about 90 minutes away, why don't you come up and talk to us. After talking to us, I'm sure you'll have a much greater understanding of what I am trying to get across in print media.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

James,
I'll tell you what, my instructor comes out to see me twice a year. You're only about 90 minutes away, why don't you come up and talk to us. After talking to us, I'm sure you'll have a much greater understanding of what I am trying to get across in print media.

Fair Enough, I can make a 90 minute hike/drive and probably crash with my Family in VA. When? Hopefully it's a weekend.

 

[Flying Crane]

Again, my point of reference is from Tracys, not EPAK, so none of my comments should be taken as a judgement of the material in the EPAK system. But I think the idea of being willing to make changes is a common theme that we can still discuss.

It occurred to me this morning that the differences between EPAK and Tracys might mean that we are really disagreeing on a point of Apples and Oranges.

I haven't studied EPAK, so I am not familiar with the curriculum, other than the general sense that some techniques are still very similar, others are quite different, and the number of techniques is much less in EPAK.

My main complaint with Tracys curriculum is in this huge and cumbersome number of techniques. I feel that many of them are poorly designed, unworkable, and have little or no chance of being successful. They are also needlessly repetitive, in many cases. This is where I felt a change was needed, to eliminate the techniques that are unreliable or needlessly repetitive, and create a more streamlined curriculum that focuses on the material that is really worthwhile.

It may be that EPAK curriculum has already addressed this issue, given the much shorter list of techniques. If I was familiar with EPAK curriculum, I may see little or no need to make the changes that I have been making. If those who are sitting in disagreement with me had a familiarity with Tracys curriculum (assuming that you do not), you might find yourselves in agreement with me. But I realized we may be arguing needlessly over something because of our differing perspectives.

I like to jump in on these threads, even tho they are more EPAK focused. I guess I just see our arts as so closely related that there is no reason for me to stay away. But I have to keep in mind that this can cause some confusion with what is being discussed.

I still feel that under the right circumstances, an individual should feel comfortable making changes. But the circumstances created by our different arts may create differing necessities with regard to this.

Hope this helps clarify. thx.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

It occurred to me this morning that the differences between EPAK and Tracys might mean that we are really disagreeing on a point of Apples and Oranges.

I haven't studied EPAK, so I am not familiar with the curriculum, other than the general sense that some techniques are still very similar, others are quite different, and the number of techniques is much less in EPAK.

My main complaint with Tracys curriculum is in this huge and cumbersome number of techniques. I feel that many of them are poorly designed, unworkable, and have little or no chance of being successful. They are also needlessly repetitive, in many cases. This is where I felt a change was needed, to eliminate the techniques that are unreliable or needlessly repetitive, and create a more streamlined curriculum that focuses on the material that is really worthwhile.

It may be that EPAK curriculum has already addressed this issue, given the much shorter list of techniques. If I was familiar with EPAK curriculum, I may see little or no need to make the changes that I have been making. If those who are sitting in disagreement with me had a familiarity with Tracys curriculum (assuming that you do not), you might find yourselves in agreement with me. But I realized we may be arguing needlessly over something because of our differing perspectives.

I like to jump in on these threads, even tho they are more EPAK focused. I guess I just see our arts as so closely related that there is no reason for me to stay away. But I have to keep in mind that this can cause some confusion with what is being discussed.

I still feel that under the right circumstances, an individual should feel comfortable making changes. But the circumstances created by our different arts may create differing necessities with regard to this.

Hope this helps clarify. thx.

Makes sense to me. But my view may be a little biased as Kenpo is only one of the systems I've devoted considerable time to. And it's also not the first or the last.

 

[Flying Crane]

Makes sense to me. But my view may be a little biased as Kenpo is only one of the systems I've devoted considerable time to. And it's also not the first or the last.

I am in exactly the same boat. Kenpo was my first, but I have spent years studying several other arts with other teachers, some of which have an approach to teaching and training that is vastly different, even opposite that of the kenpo I learned. I guess we cannot help but be influenced by this.

I have drifted from kenpo, sometimes for years at a time, while training other arts but I always seem to come back to it at some point. Then I look at it with a different perspective based on new experiences and I look for ways to make it work better for me.

 

[hongkongfooey]

In my opinion, I don't believe that Ed Parker intended people to change the core of the system when he encouraged them expand and innovate. I believe that he was refering to person's personal way of doing Kenpo, not what they were to teach their students. Sooner or later, with all of the innovation and change, EPAK will no longer be EPAK. I doubt that it was his intention to evolve his system until it became extinct.

But, then again, who knows.

 

[Doc]

In my opinion, I don't believe that Ed Parker intended people to change the core of the system when he encouraged them expand and innovate. I believe that he was refering to person's personal way of doing Kenpo, not what they were to teach their students. Sooner or later, with all of the innovation and change, EPAK will no longer be EPAK. I doubt that it was his intention to evolve his system until it became extinct.

But, then again, who knows.

You are correct, but include the disclaimer that your statements refers to the commercial system built on motion and personal interpretation as it's core tenant. Other interpretations were NOT encouraged to change, rearrange, etc without his expressed permission.