Q an A

[Ceicei]

Is Richard Huk Planas and good instructor?

He has an excellent reputation. If you have a copy of "The Journey" book, you can read about him starting page 135 of how he progressed through Kenpo.

- Ceicei

 

[jfarnsworth]

You kidding right Jeff? You know they will find something to argue about.

Well most will certainly find something to squabble about however it might cut down on a lot of it.

 

[47MartialMan]

He has an excellent reputation. If you have a copy of "The Journey" book, you can read about him starting page 135 of how he progressed through Kenpo.

- Ceicei

He used to be about a hour drive from me. I wanted to contact him to study.

 

[kenpo3631]

Well sir you are partially correct. Some of the extensions were done by students of Mr. Parker. The "original extensions" were off the original 32 chart, and were known as the "Green/Brown" material to promote to brown. (I think I have the "manual" still in my archives.) Of course they were not originally extensions but simply the technique. Then with commecialization, the endings were split off to create another level of material. Some of the splits left some of the techniques "dangling." "Clutching Feathers ended with the heel palm, and "Dance of Death" ended with the takedown, as examples. This is also why originally there was no cross cover outs in the initial techniques. You were really right at he beginning or the middle of a technique and the crossover cover would come when you learned the extension and finished the technique. When the charts were changed to 24, this gave a chart and a half of extensions. Jim Mitchell worked a great deal on the rest of the extensions. Another good reason, in my opinion, to ignore them. I have actually have all of the archived extensions on video, created over a period of time with Jim Mitchell performing them unnder Ed Parkers scruitiny. (Not on camera, but his distinct voice behind the camera), as well as the rest of the commercial curriculum as well. Mitchell is also performing all of the "two-sets" he created.

The "Staff Set" was a collaboration between Ed Parker and primarily Chuck Sullivan.

The first original 10 techniques assigned to Yellow Belt were created last by several people. Tom Kelly was the primary influence with assistance from Richard Planas, and others, as well as Mr. Parker himself. It is important to note, no one ever created anything and injected it into the system without oversight, adjustments and approval of Ed Parker.

Forms 7 & 8 were indeed created by Mr. Parker. Originally all of the "formal" forms stopped at "Form 6." With these forms were certain "sets" Parker was developing. This included the "Club Set" and the "Knife Set." Mr. Parker while working on the club set(s) became frustrated because students were in a hurry to utilize them in competition, (the reason the weapons forms were created in the first place), so he stopped what he was working on, and simply took established techniques and modified them for a two-handed club form. This became "Form 7." This was unfortunate because the sets he was working on were unique and displayed single club in "open" and "closed" positions, and opposite open/closed in each hand in doubles applications. The "Knife Set" was simply changed to "Form 8."

THANK YOU!, THANK YOU!, THANK YOU!

Doc, I was told almost verbatum by my instructor what you have posted here on MT. Thank you for setting the record straight. :asian:

 

[kenpoworks]

Doc,
I am glad you posted, you have tied up some loose ends for me and helped me more than you know!
many thanks
Richard

 

[Doc]

Cool gentlemen.

 

[Goldendragon7]

GD7, I was wondering, since the Long Forms have isolations at the end of them that give a preview of what's to come, does the end of Long 6 preview Long 7, and does the end of Long 7 preview Long 8? I was just wondering due to the transition from empty hands to clubs to knives.

To my knowledge, the way you worded this, you must be a student under a "Planas" instructor. Most insturctors don't refer to the forms having isolations at the end of the forms as being a preview of coming attractions.

The forms do "layer" on top of one another and build upon each other reviewing the old and adding advanced possibilities.

The forms 7 & 8 do not fit into this series. What is now known as form 8 used to be form 7, due to the development of the clubs in a form, Mr. Parker made the clubs form (Form 7), and moved up the knife form to become now Form 8.

 

[Drifter]

To my knowledge, the way you worded this, you must be a student under a "Planas" instructor. Most insturctors don't refer to the forms having isolations at the end of the forms as being a preview of coming attractions.

The forms do "layer" on top of one another and build upon each other reviewing the old and adding advanced possibilities.

The forms 7 & 8 do not fit into this series. What is now known as form 8 used to be form 7, due to the development of the clubs in a form, Mr. Parker made the clubs form (Form 7), and moved up the knife form to become now Form 8.

Thank you very much. I just prefer the term 'preview...' rather than isolations, actually.

I still have some bugs in my vocabulary it seems.

 

[Goldendragon7]

When we talk about 32 tech per rank or 24 tech per rank and 16 tech per rank, are we talking about What SGM Parker was teaching at different times in his life or are the Tracys and others creating new kenpo techniques for their system?.

In the beginning .... "There was Ed Parker..." ... all the techniques were his, but he also encouraged students of early times to "expand" (and of course, continued to until his passing) and he would show options to the "base" technique he would introduce or teach that day. Many variations the spawned off of this type of teaching. This was the birth of the curriculum.

As these techniques were expanded upon and played with (practiced), many were then written down and recorded and over the years and at some point, named and were refined periodically. These then were place into a curriculum which also has endured many expansions. Some early students have gone their own ways taking some of this material with them and creating new variations on their own.

Ed Parker was always very particular and finicky about the techniques and always made sure that the current "version" had the most updated attention and innovations added to it before adding his authorative "stamp of approval" and placement into HIS system. (This is the heart of the differences between true Ed Parker material and others).

Several of the techniques have interesting "stories" associated with them. For example, Lone Kimona or the old term {Kimona Grab}, came from Ed Parker witnessing first hand Prof. Chow being grabbed once and this was the crux of Chow's response. He was obviously impressed and developed a technique to record his experience. There were several of these.

:asian:

 

[kenpoworks]

Great backround Golden Dragon,
do you have any more techniques that are based on actual events.
Rich

 

[Goldendragon7]

Great backround Golden Dragon,
do you have any more techniques that are based on actual events.
Rich

A few, but I save those for live seminars and camps.

:asian:

 

[kenpoworks]

I look forward to meeting you again at one of your events to hear about them.......next time you are in Eorope?
Richard

 

[Goldendragon7]

I look forward to meeting you again at one of your events to hear about them.......next time you are in Eorope?
Richard

Soon I hope........ I am waiting for your call!

:asian:

 

[Seabrook]

The "Staff Set" was a collaboration between Ed Parker and primarily Chuck Sullivan.

Hi Sir,

My independent research from my latest book, "American Kenpo Mastery: A Guide for Students and Instructors", had found something different (although this may be what you were alluding to).

While many believe that Chuck Sullivan created the Staff Set, of what I found, Ed Parker actually learned the Staff Set from a Chinese Kung Fu expert. Ed Parker then taught the Staff Set to Chuck Sullivan. Seeing a lot of repetitiveness, particularly with the spinning maneuvers, Sullivan streamlined the Staff Set and got the approval of the new version from Ed Parker (hence, the reason why many Kenpoists think that Mr. Sullivan created the set).

Your thoughts?


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[bdparsons]

While many believe that Chuck Sullivan created the Staff Set, of what I found, Ed Parker actually learned the Staff Set from a Chinese Kung Fu expert. Ed Parker then taught the Staff Set to Chuck Sullivan. Seeing a lot of repetitiveness, particularly with the spinning maneuvers, Sullivan streamlined the Staff Set and got the approval of the new version from Ed Parker (hence, the reason why many Kenpoists think that Mr. Sullivan created the set).

For the Record: Mr. Sullivan has stated much the same thing. He does not claim to have come up with the Staff Set on his own. He does acknowledge changing the set that was taught to him by Ed Parker by elminating a lot of repetition. Mr. Parker was pleased with the end result and chose to include the modified Staff Set in his curriculum as the set to be taught. Mr. Sullivan also acknowledges that various instructors have modified even that work (sometimes unintentionally) when teaching the set to their students.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[Doc]

Hi Sir,

My independent research from my latest book, "American Kenpo Mastery: A Guide for Students and Instructors", had found something different (although this may be what you were alluding to).

While many believe that Chuck Sullivan created the Staff Set, of what I found, Ed Parker actually learned the Staff Set from a Chinese Kung Fu expert. Ed Parker then taught the Staff Set to Chuck Sullivan. Seeing a lot of repetitiveness, particularly with the spinning maneuvers, Sullivan streamlined the Staff Set and got the approval of the new version from Ed Parker (hence, the reason why many Kenpoists think that Mr. Sullivan created the set).

Your thoughts?

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Well you're right sir. At that time ALL of the sets came from various Chinese sources, and then were modified by Parker and, in some cases like Staff Set, in-put from students. What I meant was the final product was a collaboration of a modification of an original product. I have always written that the information came from other sources like Ark Wong. The same is true for Star Block, Two-Man Set, Tiger and the Crane, and even Short One/Short Two, etc. They were all learned by Parker who in turn taught them and modified them to make them his own, and in some instances his students participated in the process. However Parker was always the final word. In the case of Staff set ONLY Chuck Sullivan was involved in the creation with Parker thus, his name will always be associated with its development.

Thanks gentlemen for the clarification. I sometimes forget some do not have all the background like you do when they read singular threads.

 

[Seabrook]

Well you're right sir. At that time ALL of the sets came from various Chinese sources, and then were modified by Parker and, in some cases like Staff Set, in-put from students. What I meant was the final product was a collaboration of a modification of an original product. I have always written that the information came from other sources like Ark Wong. The same is true for Star Block, Two-Man Set, Tiger and the Crane, and even Short One/Short Two, etc. They were all learned by Parker who in turn taught them and modified them to make them his own, and in some instances his students participated in the process. However Parker was always the final word. In the case of Staff set ONLY Chuck Sullivan was involved in the creation with Parker thus, his name will always be associated with its development.

Thanks gentlemen for the clarification. I sometimes forget some do not have all the background like you do when they read singular threads.

Thanks Mr. Chapel. The next time I come to California (I am in Canada....cry,cry) I would love to sit down with you, buy you dinner, and pick your brain for about 5 hours! I would have to bring a huge booklet and a lot of pens, LOL.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[KenpoNovice]

Hello everyone! This question is for anyone interested in answering:

Earlier in the thread, Mr. Conaster posted the Master Key techniques in the American kenpo system. Could an argument be made that the Yellow Belt Self-Defense techniques are the master key techniques? I know Yellow Belt was added later, but in the EPAK 24-technique system, with anywhere from 10 to 12 techniques at Yellow Belt, this is the area where students are going to encounter the techniques first.

Examples: Intellectual Departure = Intellectual Departure
Five Swords = Delayed Sword
Thundering Hammers = Attacking Mace
Shielding Hammer = Sword of Destruction
Repeating Mace = Checking the Storm

I know this list is not complete, but if Yellow Belt couldn’t work, shouldn’t we revise the system, placing the Master Key Techniques at Yellow Belt, so the student can familiarize themselves from the beginning?


A confused student,
KenpoNovice

 

[Doc]

Thanks Mr. Chapel. T... buy you dinner,...
Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

Bring food money.

 

[Doc]

Hello everyone! This question is for anyone interested in answering:

Earlier in the thread, Mr. Conaster posted the Master Key techniques in the American kenpo system. Could an argument be made that the Yellow Belt Self-Defense techniques are the master key techniques? I know Yellow Belt was added later, but in the EPAK 24-technique system, with anywhere from 10 to 12 techniques at Yellow Belt, this is the area where students are going to encounter the techniques first.

Examples: Intellectual Departure = Intellectual Departure
Five Swords = Delayed Sword
Thundering Hammers = Attacking Mace
Shielding Hammer = Sword of Destruction
Repeating Mace = Checking the Storm

I know this list is not complete, but if Yellow Belt couldn’t work, shouldn’t we revise the system, placing the Master Key Techniques at Yellow Belt, so the student can familiarize themselves from the beginning?


A confused student,
KenpoNovice

The answer to your question is; Yes or No, Yes and no!

First your idea is based on a series of assumptions that may or may not bear fruit depending on whose teaching.

The number of techniques in the first series varies greatly even beyond what you mentioned.

You would have to assume that everyone teaches the same way AND with the same level of knowledge.

Because of the conceptual nature of the product, everything is open to instructor interpretation, good or bad.

If you were to ask the GoldenDragon Dennis he may say yes because he understands the methodology and would lay a foudation at the first level with information that will continue throughtout his lesson plans. Someone else may just "teach the techniques" as they know them.

If you were to ask me, I'd say no becasue we don't believe there are "master key techniques," only "master key principles" to create a parallel term.

So it depends on whom you talk to, their understanding, their interpretation of their understanding, and how they choose to impart information.