Master Key Moves

[kenpo3631]

I love to read these boards. I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo. Where was the use of these terms back in the 70's, 80's & 90's? It seems that folks, by stealing Mr. Parker's terms and attaching them to SKK form & techniques (combinations) somehow quantifies these, IMHO, antiquated and partial techniques (combos).

I don't know, if Villari was such a "Master" why didn't he think of such terms? I've seen clips of Brassard, why doesn't he give credit where credit is due?

For those that will say "who cares, it's just terminology, what's the big deal" The big deal is Parker formulated it for "his" Art and to not credit him is wrong. Besides, if you want to use all the Parker teminology, why not just study Parker Kenpo?

 

[marlon]

I actually do not use the Parker terminology so much partly because I am not an EPAK person and perhaps do not get it so well. It seems a little over specialized for my tastes. I have found that it is mostly the EPAK people who use ( and at times insist) on using Ed Parker's terminology. Skk does not have the structured set in stone creation the EPAK is, but there are strong principles inherent in the system distinct from others and valid in it's own right without takng anything from EPAK. Sif Bry simpley said that he wanted to look through the understanding found in Infinite Insights and see if he can deepen his understandng of skk with it. When I first looked into he Villari history I felt ashamed and looked around to find a way out. In the end my investigation led me frmly back to skk. It is the style that has everything I want when trained properly. I love it and stake my life on it. That does not mean tha t I do not listen to Doc, or that when I spar with kyokushin people or when a taiji person tea ches somethng valid that is different but can match my skk that I do not learn; and, because I learn from outside skk that does not invalidate the system. I will say that those who cannot learn from outside their own system have closed themselves of a great deal and do no beneft to their students nor do they honour their systems founderand this would be especially true of any Chow related art with EPAK way up there. It is certanly not what GM Parker did in his life
respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Milt G.]

I mean no offense, but I always considered 'master key moves' a bit of hokum.

To be clear, the concept is valid. Some moves in kenpo, or any other art, are bread-and-butter moves. You can use them in multiple scenarios. They develop solid understanding. Often, they are the ones simple enough to remember under stress and perform under suboptimal conditions.

The hokum comes from calling them 'master key moves'. Makes it sound so esoteric, so scholarly, so....worth paying an extra $50 a month so you can get the private lesson where they teach that.

Nobody ever signed up for a premium class called 'new ways to look at stuff you already know'....

Just my 3 cents canadian.

I fully agree, Mr. Brick.
Well put.

Yes, A.K. has a terminology that is pretty particular to them. Just a way to identify certain key elements of a movement or technique. "Master Key" is just such a term.

It can be easier to "sell", learn and understand a concept if it has its own "buzz phrase". Overall the terms have made AK and EPAK appear more exclusive. Not all of the concepts are exclusive to them, and are taught in some other way in many other martial arts systems.

It does make some of those concepts easier to understand for many. All new and "unique" stuff? Not most of it. It is just the "packaging".

Good post, thank you.
Milt G.

 

[Milt G.]

I love to read these boards. I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo. Where was the use of these terms back in the 70's, 80's & 90's? It seems that folks, by stealing Mr. Parker's terms and attaching them to SKK form & techniques (combinations) somehow quantifies these, IMHO, antiquated and partial techniques (combos).

I don't know, if Villari was such a "Master" why didn't he think of such terms? I've seen clips of Brassard, why doesn't he give credit where credit is due?

For those that will say "who cares, it's just terminology, what's the big deal" The big deal is Parker formulated it for "his" Art and to not credit him is wrong. Besides, if you want to use all the Parker teminology, why not just study Parker Kenpo?

Hello,
I think I understand what you are getting at and agree. Mostly.

However, everything came from somebody. To give credit to each individual whenever you use a certain word, phrase, technique, kata, etc... it would constitute having to research almost all that we say, do and practice... Not to mention the time it would take. A three hour seminar could become four or five hours to give all the credit that is due to all of those individuals that were involved in the teachings being imparted.

I think the Parker terminology is well thought out and makes sense. I do not use it myself, much, as I do not explain things in exactly the same way. They can be helpful to get a point across though, especially to some.

Over time I feel the "terminology" will be applied to many different Kenpo systems. Perhaps other arts as well. They may just become universal.
It is helpful to know where they came from.

I do use the "Marriage of Gravity" term at times. It just makes sense and gets the point across, as many of the terms do. They appear logical and well thought out. I do not give Mr. Parker credit for it every time I use it. And did Ed Parker come up with all of these terms "himself"??? While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker, I do think that much of the Kenpo we know was influenced, heavily, by the ground floor senior students that were with him in the early days. Perhaps some of his senior students should get the credit, if it was they who really "invented" the phrase?

An interesting thought, thank you.
Milt G.

 

[sifubry]

I know Mr. Parker wanted all Martial Artists to think logically, but did he want them to steal his terminology too? I am entertained by the notion that all of a sudden people are placing Mr. Parker's terms on old "Shaolin Kempo" a.k.a. Villari Kempo.

Since it was my comment that probably led to this I'll respond. I have no intention of stealing his terminology or not giving credit where credit is due. What I find is his concepts help me explore techniques, not just for Shaolin Kempo, but for my other arts too. It helps me think logically about martial movements. I also use concepts and terminology from other arts to explore Kempo.

Though we may disagree on my authority to use the products of his great mind to help me, I must ask why he wrote the books if that wasn't his intention. His terminology and concepts work best with his art, but it can also awaken observations and exploration for all artist.

Admittedly, SKK is light on details, theory and terminology but like all kempo derived from Hawaii, it has a certain commonality with its sister and brother arts. People may disagree but I see it. (Then again, my eyes may be playing tricks on me.)

I see this argument akin to telling me I can't use Cognitive Development in my Kempo because it is someone else's theory. Or that I can't use Stretching Routines from wrestling because it's not Kempo.

Anyway, I am sadden that you see it as stealing. That is not my intention.

 

[mwd0818]

13 years ago I was introduced to a bit of American Kenpo (Derived from Ed Parker, but not his). I appreciated the complexity and terminology - it helped explain things that I felt, or was already doing, but provided a clean, concise term that defined it - something that SKK did not. Since that time, I have trained in both, and my Kempo/Kenpo is better now than it ever has been because of my understanding of both systems.

I also teach the "Front Two-Knuckle Punch" as it was taught to me in Hapkido, not SKK or EPAK. The reason - it's the same punch, but the Hapkido instructor presented the punch in a more concise manner than I had ever learned anywhere else. I took that and ran with it. It was my punch, but better defined. I don't teach Hapkido, I don't talk about Hapkido in every class, but I do mention I trained in it, and I have no problem stealing teaching techniques to make my art better.

Mr. Parker was a master in terminology and was very thoughtful in translating his art to a written form to discuss it. His students also became very good at it (respectfully, I think Doc might have surpassed his teacher in that regard). If other students in other arts can benefit from his terms that are at least accepted in the "American" Kenpo community, I see no problem bridging them to the other side with Villari. At the same time, if your Kempo was good, it should have had the elements already in the techniques, just maybe not a clear and concise term to define it.

As for what Mr. Parker "hid" in his art and it being more complex and complete than Mr. Villari's . . . well, I'm not sure how much was "hidden" in EPAK. Instead, I think Mr. Parker simply approached the art and designed it thoughtfully form ALL of the information he had. Mr. Villari was a little less academic. You CAN go back and look at Category Completion, Family Groupings, Master Key Moves, the Web of Knowledge, etc. It will provide insights into how the art was developed . . . something you don't get with SKK because it wasn't designed that way. All of that info that is embedded in EPAK is simply there because that's how Mr. Parker created his art and as a student, its available for you to understand a bit deeper into each move.

As for "Master Key Moves" in SKK, well, they are there, but SKK wasn't designed around them, so finding them is an academic exercise that can be fun, but doesn't provide as much of the depth into the system as it would in EPAK.

To the reference of Combination #6 being similar to an EPAK technique from SifuBry, the suggestion was referencing either Delayed Sword or Sword of Destruction. The first blocks to the inside, kicks and then chops with an Inverted Shuto to the neck, the second blocks to the outside, kicks and then chops with a regular Shuto to the Neck (right hand working on both). Similar? Sure, but I think the main point of Combination 6 is the idea of the "stop kick", something DS and SoD from EPAK ignore by use of the block. Then again, I have two more versions of Combination #6 that have blocks in them too . . .

Oh, and Mr. Brassard does at least call his art now Shaolin American Kempo.

 

[Yondanchris]

SKK is a very simple system.
I think Nick Cerio summed it up best when he said

"hit him like this, then like this, then like this. See what I mean?"

I agree, simple and effective for self-defense. I am so thankful to have begun my martial arts journey in SKK. I in a similar way I tell my students
this chesey phrase "1, a 2, a 3, a 4 watch his body hit the floor" as an example of the deadly simplicity of SKK.

 

[Yondanchris]

With my limited knowledge of the system I believe the "master key moves" at the colored belt level are:

DM's: 2, 3, 8, 10, and 18

Kenpos: C, F, H *although they are not the same in every Dojo*

My humble and ignorant .02 cents

Chris

 

[stickarts]

I have had the good fortune to work with many high level people from many different arts and all the best do " steal " ideas and techniques from each other. This is not stealing, it is learning. I do strongly believe proper credit should be given as to the source of material and / or who taught you, however, no one need conform entirely to someone elses way if it is not a good fit for them. I think it is important to keep an open mind in approach. Different things work for different people at different times.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I have had the good fortune to work with many high level people from many different arts and all the best do " steal " ideas and techniques from each other. This is not stealing, it is learning. I do strongly believe proper credit should be given as to the source of material and / or who taught you, however, no one need conform entirely to someone elses way if it is not a good fit for them. I think it is important to keep an open mind in approach. Different things work for different people at different times.

New filters.
Sean

 

[Yondanchris]

Hello,
I think I understand what you are getting at and agree. Mostly.

However, everything came from somebody. To give credit to each individual whenever you use a certain word, phrase, technique, kata, etc... it would constitute having to research almost all that we say, do and practice... Not to mention the time it would take. A three hour seminar could become four or five hours to give all the credit that is due to all of those individuals that were involved in the teachings being imparted.

I think the Parker terminology is well thought out and makes sense. I do not use it myself, much, as I do not explain things in exactly the same way. They can be helpful to get a point across though, especially to some.

Over time I feel the "terminology" will be applied to many different Kenpo systems. Perhaps other arts as well. They may just become universal.
It is helpful to know where they came from.

I do use the "Marriage of Gravity" term at times. It just makes sense and gets the point across, as many of the terms do. They appear logical and well thought out. I do not give Mr. Parker credit for it every time I use it. And did Ed Parker come up with all of these terms "himself"??? While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker, I do think that much of the Kenpo we know was influenced, heavily, by the ground floor senior students that were with him in the early days. Perhaps some of his senior students should get the credit, if it was they who really "invented" the phrase?

An interesting thought, thank you.
Milt G.

I agree, I am going to be teaching a seminar in a few weeks and if I have to give a citation to each reference I am going to use it will be 90% giving kudos and 10% teaching...not effective

Now being in the college realm I understand quotation and citation within academic or puplication works because of legal ramifications.

but if I have to start giving kudo's every 2 seconds while teaching because im going to be sued by such and such and their brother I might as well quit now....

 

[punisher73]

I know that Doc (Dr. Ron Chapel) is on this forum and was a long time SGM Parker student. He has said many times that the infinite insights were written mainly for NON-kenpo people to get them to see how kenpo thinks and structures things. So why wouldn't other arts use the terminology?

Also, Doc has made it very clear that the "master key moves" in kenpo are a mental exercise that was taught in a commercial version of the art meant for the masses. It wasn't supposed to be a hard and fast rule. In EPAK, ALL 196 techinuqes (not counting the extendsions) are based off of 10 techniques. What is amusing is that one of the master key techniques was "removed" from yellow belt and not taught in many schools. Again, this was a mental exercise to get students to think and not something secret or set in stone.

Lastly, Jim Brassard is ranked in EPAK and teaches it alongside SKK. So how is it stealing if you advertise that fact?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Thats yours and Doc's opinion, but the concept of master Key can aid everyone.
Sean

 

[punisher73]

Thats yours and Doc's opinion, but the concept of master Key can aid everyone.
Sean

Explain how (outside of a mental exercise) as it is defined and used in EPAK? I don't believe that it really does when you get down to defining what is meant by a MASTERY KEY. As in the key/technique/idea that opens all locks as it applies to the self-defense techniques. I do believe that there are some highlighted in the techniques but not as the concept as EPAK defines it as 10 techniques are the basis for the whole system (including one technique so important it isn't even taught in some lineages).