Originally Posted by Doc
Interesting perspectives, however the Infinite Insights do not represent Ed Parker's "...original intentions ... for the art ..." unless you're speaking only of his later commercial art. His first book, "Secrets of Chinese "Karate" more closely represents his original intentions once he came to the mainland. Circumstances caused him to create an alternate and simultaneously evolving art he began to represent in his second book, "Kenpo Karate." Many of the important things in this book too were also stripped away when he embraced the "motion" only concept for commercial dissemination. Perhaps you might go back a bit further and examine those historical published works as well so that you might form a broader opinion.
This statement stimulated my thought process. As you pointed out, I never gave much thought to the original Kenpo, or more spicifically, Ed Parkers "original intentions". I for one am one of the ones that thought I was learning and teaching what the art had evolved into as Mr. Parker wanted it to.
This misunderstanding is common for those who began their training in the commercial art in the seventies or later. Naturally anyone who started then would presume that it is the “only” kenpo or the final product of a Parker kenpo evolution. Of course there are some who “claim” they stated with Parker earlier than they actually did for obvious reasons. There is at least one well-known, now very high ranked student not on the family tree (circa 1981) that only knew Parker for a few years in the eighties. When you look at their rank and the time they actually knew Parker, it is “out of balance” even by the commercial standard of awarding rank. Think of this version of kenpo as a "divergence" from other things he was doing, and not THE definitive kenpo of Ed Parker.
I think I now have a better understanding of the "commercial" impact to the art. Please correct me to help me better understand what you mean. This is what I have picked up thus far from your comments. [i may have interpretated some of your views incorrectly.]
In the beginning, Ed Parker was able to teach a very effective street fighting art, building a core of tough practitioners from students with previous martial art back grounds and/or street fighting experience. I am sure SGM Parker was able to imploy some very effective training techniques.
Very well said. When Parker originally came to the mainland, Kenpo was much more simplistic but much more physical. So much so only “tough guys” participated, and a black belt could be attained in less than a year. Only the very physical would even consider joining one of these classes. He brought with him the island tradition of, “class isn’t over until there is some blood on the mat.” Ladies, and children weren’t allowed. Once the commercial kenpo was launched the business was immediately overwhelmed by children, then followed by the less physical males and finally females. Children so dominated the schools and increased revenue, that Parker started me working on an adjustment in the rank process to include children, the less physical, art transfer students, and even sport ranking to prevent cross contamination of the process.
To teach the masses and spread Kenpo, Mr. Parker developed the idea of "tayloring" to the individual.
Well actually he developed the idea of a “motion-based” art first (from watching himself on film in reverse), that allowed students to study simple “motion” and then “tailor” it to their own needs. A brilliant concept that was and still is anomalous in the martial arts. It created a commercial success, but had serious consequences without a real Parker generated hierarchy base. Each teacher and even the student were encouraged to create and define their own base interpretation. Clearly, no real depth can come when the physical base of the art is created by the individual from nebulous concepts, beyond the individual’s own creativity.
Still, it’s a brilliant concept that performed well to its expectations. The problems arise when practitioners assign more to it then it deserves, reaching beyond Mr. Parker’s own expectations based on known limitations by the progenitor. This however is not indigenous to just kenpo. Even today there are disagreements among the Japanese, Indonesian, Chinese, Hawaiian, and Filipino arts with regards to the creation of “competition and commercial” models that will overshadow more sophisticated information in the depth of these arts. Typically the more recent lean more toward commercial and sport applications. Nothing new. Parker just did such a good job, that his commercial art naturally supplanted his personal one. No surprise there. The more people doing it, the less depth in can have. The higher the depth of the information, the less people have an understanding and access. The idea of accepting virtually anyone who comes in the door, regardless of education, age, gender, and physicality capabilities has significance to any art as a whole over time. Additionally the American culture has virtually for various reasons embraced the "sport" of martial arts as a representation of the real arts. It is not nor has it ever been, but the "selling" takes place on more levels than just Ed Parker's kenpo.
A fantastic business idea, but it came with consequences to the art. Individuals without tough backgrounds were now being taught the art in a different way. Instructors were being kicked out that had no street background. Kind of like learning to fly from someone that has never piloted before.
I like that. Very well said. As a side note when I talked to Mr. Parker about the concept, he said that there would be some that would rise to the occasion and be quite good. He told me about a swimming coach at a school in Hawaii that produced nothing but champions. He told me of the many innovative ways he trained his swimmers, but then interjected the coach, …”couldn’t swim.” I said yeah, but those people are rare. But Parker said, “Yes that is true, but they still do exist.”
Ranks started to fly out there for commercial reasons. {which is why there are instructors out there wearing high ranking Kenpo black belts and patches, but they don't know the material and/or body mechanics} (heck Doc, at times I step on toes too.)
Thanks for the back up. I think most people know this but just donÂ’t want to say or admit it. Lower student generated expectations, video black belts, etc. I donÂ’t know what the big deal is, after all Parker said it himself.
Here is a question. What is your definition of the "conceptual version"?
The version based on “infinite motion” with constituent pseudo-science concepts that promotes maximum flexibility for all with obvious limitations. Most have missed the fact that although abstract motion is infinite, human anatomical movement is not with serious limitations. Have you noticed the large number of Kenpo practitioners who are having surgery on various joints? Notably hips, shoulders, and knees that are subject to inappropriate “movements” are quite common. Even guys like Chuck Norris, and Bill Wallace have had double hips replacement surgery from “questionable” body mechanics. Proper striking mechanics are not generally taught in any martial art. Even boxing relies a lot on muscles and mass. Well known kenpo people as well have had multiple shoulder and hip surgeries.
How would you suggest to the instructors out there training themselves or instructing to overcome the "flaws" of commercial kenpo?
I think most of those who earnestly want to are, for the most part already dong it. There are reasons why many are defecting to other disciplines to “fill the holes in their, and their instructors kenpo.” They obviously have taken note of significant deficiencies in their lessons and applications.
Many are gravitating to grappling and sport arts to ratchet up the level of reality. In a grappling venue, sport or otherwise, the reality feedback is immediate. Bad body mechanics are exposed immediately. The limitations here are obvious as well. Sport applications remove “street possibilities” that “break sporting rules” and teach suspect methodologies that are effective under the umbrella of a referees protection if it fails, versus serious injury or death on the street. A “scissors take-down” is a great sport technique, but would you try it in a crowded parking lot of a bar when your life may be on the line?
Still this type of training is better than the majority of the kenpo techniques I’ve seen from many “instructors.” At least they are learning to be really physical. That’s why I admire Bob White so much, (not to slight some others that I don’t know personally. I’ve just known Bob over three decades). In my opinion, he recognized some significant deficiencies in the technique based self defense model, and injected his own personality to create a serious “street sparring” curriculum that has not only proved to be consistently successful in competition, but creates a tough physical and mental “survival” attitude in his students.
His students exemplify the words, “tough hard nosed.” You want to bang with his people? Bring a lunch, and a good attitude cause if you got a “chip,” they’ll knock it off. I might add they are as nice as they are tough, and they are very tough. Bob wouldn’t have it any other way.
Beyond that, I would examine the technique applications and ask the hard questions brought out by realistic training. “Does this really work?” If the answer is “no,” find someone who can make it work for real, or abandon it. Don’t teach the “curriculum” just so you can give a person a belt. Of course you may find out there isn’t much left except the “stomp on his foot, rupture the balls, smash the throat, finger in the eyes, methodology that works with no training at all. Isn’t that what they teach in those one-day no belt self-defense courses? Ask yourself, “Where is the real skill?”
You mentioned training with law enforcement and military individuals. How does your training/instruction differ from the "commercialized" version?
I was taught differently. Everything I learned is based on an understanding of anatomically correct and efficient body mechanic application. A “Psychology of Confrontation” component also examines the offensive goals of an attacker(s) and how to negate them mentally and physically. I WAS NOT taught ‘secret’ information, however I was taught information I was capable of utilizing in a non-business environment, and I was a working uniform police officer, and we were working on a project specifically for public law enforcement personnel that required a significantly more realistic approach not applicable in commercial schools. I simply have continued in the direction Parker was taking me. Also I began my initial study under an instructor that Parker also studied with, and therefore my understanding more closely mirrored some of his own experiences.
As this thread originated with questions pertaining to the "Infinite Insight" series, what value do volumes 1-5 hold for the version that you teach?
They are an interesting historical reference work into the legacy of Ed Parker and of his divergence into martial arts commercialism. They are required reading for my students from that perspective. They are not textbooks, nor are they reference works for the methodology that I teach whose genesis predates what was essentially dated information, (according to Ed Parker) by the time they were published. My own teachings more closely mirrored Mr. ParkerÂ’s personal evolution, not his commercial one.
{thank you for stimulating thought. all of my questions are of a genuine desire for better understanding. please do not take anything I may have said or asked personally. I deeply appreciate and respect your impact and views.}
I never felt otherwise sir.
artyon:
