"Motion" Kempo, etc?

[jks9199]

I'm targetting this at Doc -- but obviously, anyone with knowledge is more than welcome to reply!

I'm not a kenpo practitioner of any stripe. I've noticed that there are several segments or subsets of the material that was taught by Ed Parker or has it's origins in it. There's EPAK, a commercial system as I understand it. There's SL-4... which is something else. And I hear about "Motion" Kempo... as if it's kind of an underlying teaching approach or methodology.

Can anyone enlighten me a bit on these? Like why is it called "motion" kenpo? (Of, for that matter, Sub Level 4?)

 

[DavidCC]

I bet if you use the search feature you would find some very good posts describing how Doc Chapel uses the term "motion kenpo" and how it differs from what he teaches' and also you would get to read some very hot-headed posts by people who feel insulted by the term, even though they people consider American Kenpo Karate to be "the study of motion".

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Ed Parkers commercial vehicle for spreading kenpo was based on a thorough understanding of the "laws of motion." He created a vocabulary of motion...terms and ideas that explored and expressed martial movement in simple enough terms, that it could ideally be taught, understood, shared, and discussed by folks on opposite sides of a continent, and everybody be on the same page.

Mr. Parker took an engineers mind to classifying the types of motion the body was capable of and assigning them to categories. These categories then were used to elucidate basics. Basics combined to form self-defense techniques, sets, and forms, each presumably illustrating several of the laws of motion he delineated in his writings and standardized system.

Trouble was, it didn't quite pan out as planned. Mr. Prker rarely ever did techniques the same way twice, choosing to use them as vehicles of communication to illustrate concepts, principles, or ideas under discussion. But the people in the room would say, "This is how Mr. Parker taught it to me", and canonize it as "the right way". The motion model he proposed allowed for -- and even encouraged -- rearrangement: The idea that there really was no right or wrong way; techniques are merely arrangements of basic movements, toward a contextual objective. As the context changes, we must change with it...which means, don't try to do 5 swords against a punch. Maybe use the block and chop, but since another punch is coming, but something else is going to be happening by the time you get this far, be ready to adapt by changing up your approach to the liquid situation.

So, people out there getting fixations on right/wrong way to approach a model that was left open and permissive for recruiting sakes (on the dark side), and flexibility to adapt (on the bright side). But (and this is where people get uppity), Mr. Parker -- when he would do his own kenpo -- would move in certain ways and use his body in certain ways that he never specifically taught as part of the cirriculum, or relayed as a requirement. He would use little "isms" to ramp up his own effectiveness, but not hold seminars on those isms...rather, just do them while teaching a session on some more abstract concepts. If you caught the isms, good for you. If not, whatever.

SL4 is Docs effort at categorizing those isms, and placing them into the system cirriculum as requirements. Rather than just waving your arms around and saying you're doing some technique X, HOW, WHY, and WHEN you move your body in the course of executing that technique is just as important as the tech itself. Rearrangement theory is avoided until people have learned the basics properly...a great response to a problem inherent in AK, which is...too much material, too soon, causes students to stop training basics at one level to rush on to the next = lousy or ineffectual basics. Kinduva, "You don;t know what you don;t know, so stop trying to second guess what's possible, and just pay attention to getting your basics right...we'll look at the other stuff when the time is right.

Techniques are used to teach and engrain mechanically correct martial movement, rather than as mini-episodes of fight scenes. Once mechanics are owned, application follows more logically form the sounder foundation.

If someone wanted a simpler synopsis, I offer: AK focuses more on high-speed, blunt force trauma to vital targets; SL4 focuses more on tactical strikes to nerves and other structurally supportive tissues. AK focuses on speed first, hoping structure follows (not all, but enough to be an issue). SL4 focuses on proper movement, allowing speed and power to develop naturally as a side effect of proper techique.

To these ends, basics are challenged to ensure proper mechanical alignment in the direction of resistance to impact. Skills in delivery are emphasized instead of just blasting a guy. Appropriate response to force escalation is emphasized...Doc's an LEO, and so are most of his students. A search on Kenpotalk will also yield some writings about points of emphasis in SL4. Worth the read.

Hope it helps,

Dave...not quite motion kenpo, but not enough SL4 either. But working on it.

 

[Danjo]

Here's one from Doc to me a while back on Kenpotalk:

Quote:
Originally Posted by

Chuck Sulivan began training during Parker's earliest days on the mainland and was doing the hard, mostly linear "Kenpo Karate" Parker imported from Hawaii, and essentially continues that interpretation. A look a t their current curriculum supports that perspective of very simple and direct.

AL & Jim left at the beginning of the "Chinese Kenpo" evolution and although there were varying degrees of crossover from one evolving method to another, there were at least 5 very clear and distinct philosophies, styles, and interpretations.

1. "Kenpo Karate" What Ed Parker was doing when he arrived on the mainland, first as a brown and later as a black belt opening shop in Pasadena around 54. Wrote the book of the same name and published it in 1961. Bought thousands of patches and got "stuck" with them. Teachers like Chuck Sullivan draw from this era.

2. "Chinese Kenpo" When Ed Parker discovered the vast knowledge available and embraced the Chinese Arts while studying with and under Ark Wong and Huemea Lefiti. Also where he met Jimmy (James Wing) Woo, and Danny Inosanto. Broke with the established "yudansakai." During this period he wrote "Secrets Of Chinese Karate" and published it in 1963. Notice the compressed time frame. People like Frank Trejo's instructor, Steve Hearring still teach this perspective in Pasadena.

3. "American Kenpo" Began the codification process of his early understandings of Chinese Kenpo into a distinct evolving American interpretation. Dropped all Japanese - Chinese language and non-essential non-American cultural accoutrements. Notice the lack of the word "karate," considered an insult to the Chinese. Some like Dave Hebler draw from the beginnings of this version.

4. "Ed Parkers Kenpo Karate" A series of personal issues causes Ed Parker to decide to enter the commercial marketplace and expand in the second half of the sixties. Looking for a method that differed from the kenpo franchises that preceded him that he felt were flawed, he drew upon his many "transfer" black belts from other styles. Stumbling upon "motion" as a base concept, it allowed him to create loose conceptual guidelines for already competent black belts. This further gave him the freedom to travel conducting seminars, belt tests, and selling, while seeing the majority of his "students" two or three times a year and usually once at the IKC. Most of the well known black belts came up under this system. Some better than others. Some spent their own dime and came to see Parker often when he was in town like Dennis Conatser who I always plug because I think he brilliant.

Some came very late in the eighties and is the reason they are not on the family tree. The rest came after Parker's death. Most of the older seniors rejected it and/or left. This was what he was sharing with a few private students in an effort to cash in on the publicity of Larry Tatum's student Jeff Speakman's movie, "Perfect Weapon." He hoped to rekindle a chain of schools that he directly financially controlled. All of his schools and his black belt students had defected years ago. He maintained only one profitable school run by Larry Tatum in the eighties until he changed personnel.

5. "Ed Parker's Personal American Kenpo" The ever evolving personal art of Ed Parker that included elements left out of his commercial diversion or off shoots and other interpretations as well. (nerve meridians, mat work, manipulations, structural integrity, etc) This included all the things that students couldn't duplicate because Parker didn't generally teach it. Here lies all the things that some have discovered is missing from his diversion art that he never wrote about anywhere. "Slap-Check" comes to mind. I gave what he shared with me my own name after he passed based on phrases Parker used to describe it to differeniate between it and other versions of what he taught. However in reality it is the "American Kenpo" Parker was utilizing before he passed away that was still evolving. Others that he may have taught may have other names for it, but to understand it, a person would have had to evolve with Parker into it because of a lack of its hard codification.
__________________
"Nothing is more dangerous than the conscientiously ignorant, or the sincerely stupid." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Beauty fades, but dumb is forever." - Judith Sheindlin.

"Straighten Up and Fly Right." - Nat "King" Cole

www.MartialScienceUniversity.com

 

[jks9199]

Thanks for the answers so far.

I know that some of this has been discussed elsewhere, at different points -- but don't recall a thread breaking the terms down and explaining them. Especially the phrase "motion kenpo." Additionally -- some of the heat in those threads makes it pretty hard to figure out, or they begin with an expectation of some base understanding of kenpo. Imagine if I said that A teaches line form with a stomp while B uses a sweep evasion. Another Bando practitioner may understand what I'm saying -- but almost no one else will. Many of the kenpo threads end up doing that...

The only reason, for those wondering, I kind of singled Doc out is that he consistently gives well written, complete answers, without a lot of that heat -- especially on kenpo history questions.

 

[Doc]

Ed Parkers commercial vehicle for spreading kenpo was based on a thorough understanding of the "laws of motion." He created a vocabulary of motion...terms and ideas that explored and expressed martial movement in simple enough terms, that it could ideally be taught, understood, shared, and discussed by folks on opposite sides of a continent, and everybody be on the same page.

Mr. Parker took an engineers mind to classifying the types of motion the body was capable of and assigning them to categories. These categories then were used to elucidate basics. Basics combined to form self-defense techniques, sets, and forms, each presumably illustrating several of the laws of motion he delineated in his writings and standardized system.

Trouble was, it didn't quite pan out as planned. Mr. Prker rarely ever did techniques the same way twice, choosing to use them as vehicles of communication to illustrate concepts, principles, or ideas under discussion. But the people in the room would say, "This is how Mr. Parker taught it to me", and canonize it as "the right way". The motion model he proposed allowed for -- and even encouraged -- rearrangement: The idea that there really was no right or wrong way; techniques are merely arrangements of basic movements, toward a contextual objective. As the context changes, we must change with it...which means, don't try to do 5 swords against a punch. Maybe use the block and chop, but since another punch is coming, but something else is going to be happening by the time you get this far, be ready to adapt by changing up your approach to the liquid situation.

So, people out there getting fixations on right/wrong way to approach a model that was left open and permissive for recruiting sakes (on the dark side), and flexibility to adapt (on the bright side). But (and this is where people get uppity), Mr. Parker -- when he would do his own kenpo -- would move in certain ways and use his body in certain ways that he never specifically taught as part of the cirriculum, or relayed as a requirement. He would use little "isms" to ramp up his own effectiveness, but not hold seminars on those isms...rather, just do them while teaching a session on some more abstract concepts. If you caught the isms, good for you. If not, whatever.

SL4 is Docs effort at categorizing those isms, and placing them into the system cirriculum as requirements. Rather than just waving your arms around and saying you're doing some technique X, HOW, WHY, and WHEN you move your body in the course of executing that technique is just as important as the tech itself. Rearrangement theory is avoided until people have learned the basics properly...a great response to a problem inherent in AK, which is...too much material, too soon, causes students to stop training basics at one level to rush on to the next = lousy or ineffectual basics. Kinduva, "You don;t know what you don;t know, so stop trying to second guess what's possible, and just pay attention to getting your basics right...we'll look at the other stuff when the time is right.

Techniques are used to teach and engrain mechanically correct martial movement, rather than as mini-episodes of fight scenes. Once mechanics are owned, application follows more logically form the sounder foundation.

If someone wanted a simpler synopsis, I offer: AK focuses more on high-speed, blunt force trauma to vital targets; SL4 focuses more on tactical strikes to nerves and other structurally supportive tissues. AK focuses on speed first, hoping structure follows (not all, but enough to be an issue). SL4 focuses on proper movement, allowing speed and power to develop naturally as a side effect of proper techique.

To these ends, basics are challenged to ensure proper mechanical alignment in the direction of resistance to impact. Skills in delivery are emphasized instead of just blasting a guy. Appropriate response to force escalation is emphasized...Doc's an LEO, and so are most of his students. A search on Kenpotalk will also yield some writings about points of emphasis in SL4. Worth the read.

Hope it helps,

Dave...not quite motion kenpo, but not enough SL4 either. But working on it.

Uh. what he said! or not quite as verbose; Ed Parker created his commercial version of Kenpo specifically as, (in his own words), "The study of motion." It is supremely flexible making it ideal for its designed applications, because "motion is infinite."

However, SL-4 (SubLevel Four Kenpo) is a different branch evolution and is Parker's own method of execution, so it is in fact still "American Kenpo." It is the study of the martial applications of biomechanical movement utilizing Parker's perspective. It is more specific in all aspects and focuses on correct human movement because, although "motion is infinite," human movement is not. The name was coined by me to draw the distinction between the two methods for the purposes of public discussion.

 

[jks9199]

So... just to check my understanding now:

"Motion kempo" is really a catch-all term for several phases of Ed Parker's teaching, where the emphasis was almost on using a common basis of understanding the principles of motion as related to self defense/personal combat.

SL4, as well as what some people learned personally from Ed Parker, was somewhat comparable to the distinction between an intro level class and a grad level class in those principles. Instead of simply knowing that they exist -- it's getting into WHY and HOW they work.

Reasonable understanding for an outsider -- or am I way off base?

 

[Doc]

So... just to check my understanding now:

"Motion kempo" is really a catch-all term for several phases of Ed Parker's teaching, where the emphasis was almost on using a common basis of understanding the principles of motion as related to self defense/personal combat.

SL4, as well as what some people learned personally from Ed Parker, was somewhat comparable to the distinction between an intro level class and a grad level class in those principles. Instead of simply knowing that they exist -- it's getting into WHY and HOW they work.

Reasonable understanding for an outsider -- or am I way off base?

Not quite there sir. "Motion-Kenpo" was a product that followed previous Ed Parker work, that was specifically designed and created to be commercial. Think of it as a "splinter," not an evolution. It bares no relation physically or philosophically to his previous work. It is a stand-alone entity, that can neither move forward or backward on its own merits created for that expressed purpose. The majority of Ed Parker's lineage before it was created, did not like it, and didn't want to learn it.

Previous material was more straight forward effective, but was not as commercially viable. Previous material functionally excluded children, women, and the less physically capable men. It was tough material for tough men. This is the period where Chuck Sullivan or Dave Hebler come from. Simple, and direct.

Motion-Kenpo is philosophically flexible and wholly conceptual. It requires an instructor to give it parameters and substance, and will always be limited to that instructors experience, skill, and knowledge. Most of its first generation teachers were transplanted black belts from other styles, so it worked.

It is wholly based philosophically on studying abstract motion because Mr. Parker couldn't be on the floor every night, everywhere, and it is commercially viable. Subsequent 'teachers' who came from within that system, had no other point of reference, or real martial experience. That why they were there. This is the reason they are now going outside of the conceptual system to acquire that experience and substance in droves that it lacks.

SubLevel Four Kenpo, (my name for the way I was taught) has a much greater distinction than you suggest. Motion-Kenpo has no principles, only conceptual ideas, that may be called principles within the vehicle. However, it is not principled in the true scientific use of the term. Principles require hands on in-person teaching, and constant finite physical corrections to translate the understanding to physical execution.

SubLevel Four IS NOT flexible in its earlier stages, and requires well learned physical basics, and therefore it is not as commercially viable as the motion concept, although it can work semi-commercially. It will not allow progression until previous material is learned and physically competent. Motion-Kenpo tends to grade on the curve, SL-4 sets hard standards that must be adhered to with no exceptions.

Motion-Kenpo, by design, does not turn away anyone in its business approach. Sublevel Four Kenpo tends to attract intellectually mature and personally disciplined individuals. It has minimal levels of intellectual and physical performance that will naturally exclude some people, including many young, immature, or older infirm individuals. It is a "Kenpo Performance First" perspective, not meant to be a "welcome all business." It teaches and focuses on HOW EVERYTHING is supposed to function, and a little at a time, WHY. Therefore it tends to be inverse in representation than Motion kenpo, that is flooded with kids and juniors, which in many cases forms the base of the business. SL-4 has few youngsters.

I cannot speak for what others subsequently learned from Ed Parker.

 

[jks9199]

Let me try again...

"Motion Kenpo" was simply a concept vehicle used for commercial schools, to move something resembling Ed Parker's kenpo from the old-school, fight-tough-or-get-out approach of the earlier Ed Parker programs into the commercial martial arts school world, where you can't beat a student up too much or they'll leave, and nobody wants to go explain a black eye or bruises at work the next day.

SL-4 is a conceptually dense, principle oriented method of teaching and analyzing the science of personal combat. In other words -- SL-4 builds upon well honed basic techniques and skills, and moves into the whys and hows to really make them work to their best ability. A loose analogy might be to make a comparison between the average commuter beater car and a highly tuned precision race car; they have lots of things in common -- but they're much more highly refined in the race car.

Am I getting closer?

 

[Doc]

Let me try again...

"Motion Kenpo" was simply a concept vehicle used for commercial schools, to move something resembling Ed Parker's kenpo from the old-school, fight-tough-or-get-out approach of the earlier Ed Parker programs into the commercial martial arts school world, where you can't beat a student up too much or they'll leave, and nobody wants to go explain a black eye or bruises at work the next day.

SL-4 is a conceptually dense, principle oriented method of teaching and analyzing the science of personal combat. In other words -- SL-4 builds upon well honed basic techniques and skills, and moves into the whys and hows to really make them work to their best ability. A loose analogy might be to make a comparison between the average commuter beater car and a highly tuned precision race car; they have lots of things in common -- but they're much more highly refined in the race car.

Am I getting closer?

Cut the crap, which one of my students are you?

 

[jks9199]

Cut the crap, which one of my students are you?

I'm flattered that I'm picking the ideas up enough that you'd think I'm a ringer...

But I've never had the privilege of even meeting you. We're on opposite sides of the continent, I do believe! (And central Ohio is still more than a few hours from me... or you I might be out there in November!)