SubLevel Four Article # 4

1. When teaching your students a technique are you using the the standard base 154 techniques plus your extra 6 as your standard curriculum?

We actually have more techniques. For most, American kenpo began with the “32 technique charts,” that was changed to 24 and then 16. But historically, all of the techniques didn’t survive the commercial evolutions, and many more were created. This is the most obvious in the “yellow belt” that was created after the original 32 charts were in place, and underwent subsequent changes and revisions over the years.

“Back in the day,” techniques didn’t even have names and were simply numbered. Then slowly they were given loose “recognition” names. A good example is what is now called “Five Swords” was called the “Five Count” which is not executed the way it originally was. So not only did the names undergo revision and change, but the techniques as well so none of the information has ever been cast in stone.

So when you talk about “standard curriculum” you are speaking from the perspective of whatever you’ve been taught from when you began, which can be entirely different for someone else.

I began before the 32 charts was solidified, and evolved with the process in “never never land.” That is, when he created the commercial model, some things taught were just impractical and didn’t translate into a more realistic scenario. Many techniques were created to “flesh out” the model or as Huk would say “category completion.” On the face it was not a bad idea, because it forced you to consider a lot of options, but all of them didn’t necessarily translate well to practicality.

When I went into the law enforcement academy in 69, it changed my and his perspective of what I was taught and would teach. It gave him an opportunity to get back into his law enforcement teaching, which he absolutely loved.

So I guess the answer is it’s the same but different in places that violated his overall philosophy and direction of my teachings. So you’ll notice some “new” techniques (like for rifles and shotguns), as well as some familiar ones missing. But it’s been my experience the ones we removed are ones nobody liked anyway. I’m sure you’ve heard people say, “I’d never use that technique in the street.” I know I have. To be honest some of those techniques are just “bad” ideas that violate anatomical constraints. Some are simply obsolete, and need to be replaced. Some techniques had to be created to fill gaps in our curriculum. “Slashing blades,” autoloader guns held high and sideways,” rifles and shotguns, knife-edge held against the throat while braced against a wall, knives in the back, etc.

2. As far as the extra techniques you put into your curriculum are you covering them as grappling techniques? You answered Mr. Bugg with long range gun techs. but somewhere I thought you posted some grappling techniques within the sL-4 curriculum.

We have some pure ”grappling” techniques, but all of our techniques have “anti-grappling” components as a part of their default execution. But understand something. There are no “extra” techniques, they are our curriculum that should not be compared but simply examined. Even those who have learned the motion based commercial interpretation, are held together only by ‘”tailored conceptual constraints,” not specific technique application execution.

3. At level 4 you stated a confrontation comes to a controlled, conclusive end. Does this mean getting to Level 4 Delayed Sword doesn't end up as handsword to the side of the neck; where your curriculum does like an armbar or something at the end to gain complete control of the would be attacker?

Yes that’s correct. In the Delayed Sword example you used, the hand sword is not used, and is replaced by a heel palm “PMD Stunner” prelude to a nose fulcrum takedown, pin, and hanging lock.

4. Based upon the 24 tech. curriculum that Mr. Parker had worked with 2nd brown ended the new techs. from 1st brown on up they started the extensions to the lower belt material. Is this how you base the different level's as the student progresses within the curriculum they start refining at yellow then working on up? (If that question makes any sense.)

I understand what you mean and the answer is no. I began using “A” 16- technique model in the late seventies and the techniques extend all the way to black. The next level begins after black and starts over again at what was previously “yellow,” and each subsequent level does the same. There are no busy-work “extensions” as most understand them.
Although many are not aware, when Parker made the decision to lower the number of techniques per chart, he wanted to go directly to 16, but decided that would be too much to quick. He decided to go to 24 as an intermediate model for “about” 5 years, before finally going to 16. Some never got to 24, many never got to 16, but it didn’t change the ideas, only when they were taught.

5. With your different variations on techniques and such do you still teach the forms and sets in your curriculum? If so have you changed footwork pattern, hand positioning etc.?

Many of the forms and sets are taught, but with completely different interpretations and mechanisms. The busy-work “two’s,” as you probably know them, are non-existent. The multiple numbered sets like “kick 3,” “Finger 2,” “coordination 2” don’t exist. Of course these were created later anyway, once again, to flesh out the model. I never did any of that. But then our Kick 1 is different, and most of our 10 stance sets are different, etc.

6. I have to assume the picture sequence on pg. 49 is your variation to Triggered Salute.

I must correct your use of words. (The Old Man really emphasized this with me and said to always be clear with words). It is not a variation but how it is executed. From your perspective it is probably a variation from what you do. I only say this as a reminder. There is no “universal” kenpo model or “ideal” with different variations, there is only what you were taught and how you execute. In our curriculum everyone does the default technique the same. Different school, or a different teacher, it really doesn’t matter.

As the attacker steps in with the front direct right shoulder push they step into a rear twist stance keeping the shoulders square. The next sequence was to push drag forward from the twist; why not unwind from the twist had the attacker really commited to the push.

The shoulders are not square but you can’t see that in a picture. How you get into that twist stance is important. We teach a component called Surviving The Initial Assault™ that emphasizes in each technique what you have to do to survive that first contact. That is one of the things that make’s the difference.

The reason you can’t just “unwind” is because your hips will be out of alignment and you need to explode forward with a PAM to realign and create power.

I feel the push-drag from that position would be uncomfortable and hard to execute. (I'm sure this is one of those things that has to be shown & felt to understand)

Correct. Once I show you “how” you would never do it another way. That’s Kenpo’s weakness. The written material doesn’t show you “how” to do anything, but only tells you “what” you could possibly do as an idea. Only a good teacher brings out the “how,” and relatively speaking, there are not a lot of good teachers. There are some people who for some reason feel what's written in those manuals tell you how, but if that's the case, why are there so many questions about "how?" The truth is simple for any rational minded person to see. Because the manual says, "..hand sword to the neck." doesn't tell you how, where, angle, mechanism, set up, hand formation, etc. It just tells you what.

7. I'm kind of curious as to the technique sequence on page 50 is this Parting Wings in your curriculum?

Don’t know, I haven’t examined the magazine that close, and I don’t have one handy. We take usually forty/fifty pictures, and they put them together.

8. Do your students have to study/follow/and identify the meridian points on the body during tests? Is this something you teach or something that must be taken in a college course or perhaps a little of both?

I do not emphasize points. I concentrate on the proper body mechanics and the students pick it up as they progress. The lower divisions students never ask, “What point is this?” because it’s not really important. Learning to execute the technique properly is paramount, and the better you get the more specific your “touches” become. You’ll still hear my students naming cavities and meridians, but not because I said “learn this.” As Ed Parker told me tongue –in-cheek, “If you spend your time learning points and meridian cavities, you might end up being an acupuncturist, but you won’t learn to fight.”

9. Why do you feel there is no tailoring done in SL-4? Certianly a guy my size at 5"7' @ 155lbs. can't possibly execute material the same way as someone your size. Bigger practictioners have more mass, and strength to help carry them through a technique. Whereas I need to alter weapons and such to ensure I have to make the technique work properly or change up.

Because there isn’t as most understand it. Understand this. “Tailoring” as Ed Parker meant it for his commercial model was necessary to allow that conceptual vehicle to work. Every art tailors, but Ed Parker took the concept to another level and said something no one had ever said before. “It doesn’t matter how you do it as long as it works.” Great and ingenious for a quick elf defense course, which is what it is, but bad for good basics and long term skill development and reaching the higher levels of any art. It also meant that from a business perspective, nobody was turned away.

This is one reason why you find an abundance of women and children in Kenpo now, relative to some other traditional and more physically demanding disciplines. When I started there were no women or children because classes were just too physical. Schools were full of ex-military, athletes, and tough guys who could fight before they started taking classes. Now you have people that have no concept of a real fight coming into schools, going through the material, making black, and now teaching.

Tailoring had to be taken to another level or what has become the bigger part of the business would have to be turned away. One thing for sure, the commercial TKD schools figured that out a long time ago as well. That’s just honest.

That model was never destined to get you to high levels. There is no art or discipline where you can “do things the way you want” and somehow that will translate into some relative high level of efficiency beyond the personal. Anyone at a high level in any physical activity has someone to force him or her to do things correctly, based on knowledge they don’t have. Young warriors and athletes simply don’t have the knowledge, and must be taught specifically by a teacher or coach. There is no such thing as “exploring.” Only teachers and coaches explore, students and players “learn.”

My 155 lb people will execute, perform well and will put you away efficiently as anyone else. Mr. Parker used to say, “If I shoot a guy between the eyes with a 22, or 357, which one killed him the best?” “It’s all in the execution My Brudda.”
 
Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Keep us updated :)

By the way Jason, there's some very good info in Doc's site about SubLevel-4. As I understood it, not relying on pain compliance makes the technique work no matter your size or mass.

But I also understood that there's some room to tailoring, by way of knowing meridians and working on them. Not just the same tailoring most are used to do. Have I understood it right?

The tailoring in SubLevel Four is more like what is in the traditional Chinese and other arts. Tailoring as in Parker's commercial kenpo is a complete anamoly, but neccessary in a business model with an emphasis on numbers and quick self defense skills.
 
Originally posted by Doc
“It’s all in the execution My Brudda.”

I understand :asian:

1. What does the red stripes represent on the lapel?

2. If I understood properly level 1 is taught the complete curriculum. Then level 2,3,&4 are once again taught completely through the curriculum again? If this is the case I can see how an individual will get extremely sharp by continually learning, & refining the system that many times over again.:asian:
 
Originally posted by Doc
So when you talk about “standard curriculum” you are speaking from the perspective of whatever you’ve been taught from when you began, which can be entirely different for someone else.

I think his question is if one looked at your charts would they resemble the "standard curriculum"? I thought the answer would be "yes", but done within the SL-4 context. In the belt test I saw (on video) the techniques were in the same order just done differently.

But it’s been my experience the ones we removed are ones nobody liked anyway. I’m sure you’ve heard people say, “I’d never use that technique in the street.” I know I have. To be honest some of those techniques are just “bad” ideas that violate anatomical constraints. Some are simply obsolete, and need to be replaced.

Were any of them determined to be obsolete or "bad" ideas prior to SGM Parker's passing?


I understand what you mean and the answer is no. I began using “A” 16- technique model in the late seventies and the techniques extend all the way to black.

So you don't use the 16 tech curriculum that Mr. Duffy presented to SGM Parker and that he sent out to some of his people to apply?


The next level begins after black and starts over again at what was previously “yellow,” and each subsequent level does the same. There are no busy-work “extensions” as most understand them.

So are you saying you don't know "the extensions"? Did SGM Parker ever teach them to you? or the "2's" sets?


The busy-work “two’s,” as you probably know them, are non-existent. The multiple numbered sets like “kick 3,” “Finger 2,” “coordination 2” don’t exist. Of course these were created later anyway, once again, to flesh out the model. I never did any of that. But then our Kick 1 is different, and most of our 10 stance sets are different, etc.

So is that to say that you believe SGM Parker created somethings just as busy work and have no value your system of Kenpo?


Very interesting insight...

jb:asian:
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I understand :asian:

1. What does the red stripes represent on the lapel?


I began a 5 year plan to remove "stripes" from our curriculum and belts. The previous stage moved them to the lapel to focus on the person and not the belt. We all wear plain belts, although I admit sometimes when I leave our schools and go elsewhere for seminars, they want to see stripes for pictures and such.

The smaller stripes on the lapel are now gone in favor of very small rank insignia similar to the military. if you aren't in our curriculum you won't know what it means and will probably not notice it.

It's all about knowledge and proficiency, and rank has been removed to this nebulous area I call "honorary." All ranks are now categorized "honorary or emeritus," (including mine) and it is nothing we focus on.

They are pretty much weened but I still here a few grumbles from the lower level black belts who never had the chance to wear the "big stripe." periodically I make everyone in class switch belts for the day. Blacks end up wearing yellows and everything in between. Yellows put on the black belts.

At the end of class I ask the question, "Did anyone gain or loose any skill or knowledge from the belt they were wearing?"
You know the answer.
2. If I understood properly level 1 is taught the complete curriculum. Then level 2,3,&4 are once again taught completely through the curriculum again? If this is the case I can see how an individual will get extremely sharp by continually learning, & refining the system that many times over again.:asian:

That's exactly what we do through 5 levels. Another reason to de-emphasize belts. The material you learn is only limited by the level we choose to teach it, and not restricted to some esoteric and nebulous color. The 101 Course is not yellow material, it's just being taught at a yellow level. That very puposefully categorized knowledge and required skill while building significant foundation for subsequent levels.
 
Originally posted by jbkenpo
I think his question is if one looked at your charts would they resemble the "standard curriculum"? I thought the answer would be "yes", but done within the SL-4 context. In the belt test I saw (on video) the techniques were in the same order just done differently.



Were any of them determined to be obsolete or "bad" ideas prior to SGM Parker's passing?




So you don't use the 16 tech curriculum that Mr. Duffy presented to SGM Parker and that he sent out to some of his people to apply?




So are you saying you don't know "the extensions"? Did SGM Parker ever teach them to you? or the "2's" sets?




So is that to say that you believe SGM Parker created somethings just as busy work and have no value your system of Kenpo?


Very interesting insight...

jb:asian:

I presume your questions are mostly rhetorical because they were all answered in the original post.

I knew the "extensions" and even taught them to my student Tommy Chavies, but to be specific, I find no value in them for our cirriculum whatsoever. Neither did Parker and he didn't teach them to me. I learned them on my own out of curiosity and taught them for about a year in the seventies. I think Huk said the same. Some may find that strange but they don't know our curriculum. I always describe it as "the same but different."
 
Originally posted by Doc
The tailoring in SubLevel Four is more like what is in the traditional Chinese and other arts. Tailoring as in Parker's commercial kenpo is a complete anamoly, but neccessary in a business model with an emphasis on numbers and quick self defense skills.

I haven't done much tailoring yet. We work the basic technique most of the time. The work we usually do on the what if... is more about changing partners, speed and power. Things like that.

When we want to play with techniques, we either create new ones or do technique lines :D
 
Originally posted by Doc
I presume your questions are mostly rhetorical because they were all answered in the original post.

I knew the "extensions" and even taught them to my student Tommy Chavies, but to be specific, I find no value in them for our cirriculum whatsoever. Neither did Parker and he didn't teach them to me. I learned them on my own out of curiosity and taught them for about a year in the seventies. I think Huk said the same. Some may find that strange but they don't know our curriculum. I always describe it as "the same but different."

Yeah,

I guess, if all my questions were in fact true statements... Sometimes the web only adds to my ability to tactfully ask questions :) I just remember arguing a guy down last week that I was sure you taught the extensions and SL4 was this and Doc was this...clearly, based on this thread I'm still learning about the different facets of your system and it is truly enlightening..

I think you know what side of the tracks I'm on and I have never vacillated in that regard (regardless of my interaction with those who believe different and my relentless questioning)... Regardless of trumped up or non-trumped up controversy, etc... your still by far one of the smartest and most giving martial artists I've ever met...and that is a fact. Until someone can show me that it is easy to create advanced principles and concepts, organize a martial science system and hard code that system (while continually updating and refining) the way you have I'll maintain that position.

jb:asian:
 
Originally posted by jbkenpo
Yeah,

I guess, if all my questions were in fact true statements... Sometimes the web only adds to my ability to tactfully ask questions :) I just remember arguing a guy down last week that I was sure you taught the extensions and SL4 was this and Doc was this...clearly, based on this thread I'm still learning about the different facets of your system and it is truly enlightening..

I think you know what side of the tracks I'm on and I have never vacillated in that regard (regardless of my interaction with those who believe different and my relentless questioning)... Regardless of trumped up or non-trumped up controversy, etc... your still by far one of the smartest and most giving martial artists I've ever met...and that is a fact. Until someone can show me that it is easy to create advanced principles and concepts, organize a martial science system and hard code that system (while continually updating and refining) the way you have I'll maintain that position.

jb:asian:

Comon JB, you make me blush. I mean as much as is possible. We'll get together again on "SubLevel Four Avenue." Thanks.:asian:
 
Originally posted by Doc
...to be specific, I find no value in them for our cirriculum whatsoever...

I kind of wonder how some of the seniors in kenpo feel this way? I've heard this statement before but I (personally) notice different timing changes, more position recognition, follow ups, more advanced ideas of what if scenario's. If you would Dr. Chapel and share your views on these techniques.:asian:
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I kind of wonder how some of the seniors in kenpo feel this way? I've heard this statement before but I (personally) notice different timing changes, more position recognition, follow ups, more advanced ideas of what if scenario's. If you would Dr. Chapel and share your views on these techniques.:asian:
A fair question.

Because our curriculum is based on anatomically efficient movement, the personally tailored or expedient motion is not a part of the teaching and is in fact not allowed. In physics there are no shortcuts. You either move correctly, training the body and it’s skeletal sub structure frame and connecting tissue, or you don’t. If you want to build long-term skills and foundation as well as internal energy, there is no other way. This is not a part of the motion based commercial art.

That being said, when your objective is quick self-defense, these things are not important. When your objective is to take and teach “anyone who walks in the door” lay people and non athletes self defense, than the study of different and varied aspect of motion can be a good thing that may serve them well in many situations.

But to be honest, the extensions were created to flesh out the motion structure. Anyone who examines them honestly will see that easily. Even Huk said that. Obviously they are not based in reality, but are a “study model.” The system basic structure ended at blue, and then at green belt there were “Green/Orange Techniques” created to advance to brown with further “extended techniques” for black. The green/Orange techniques were Orange extensions, and the other extensions, were actually created much much later.

My objection is simply that some people who learn from this interpretation elevate the status of what they have learned, and take what skills they have learned and the rank thing a bit too serious for a very commercial self-defense art. How many other arts have so many young masters and grandmasters? At least TKD knew that wasn't a good idea and limits it.

Then after getting significant rank, they go to be white belts in other arts to fill in the "skill gaps" taking their lofty rank with them. this is partly where the poor reputation of Kenpo comes from with other artists. Of course AK isn't the only commercial art guilty of this.

The caliber of the art is limited by design to the level of its instructor. Unfortunately, there are many more bad teachers than good, but what can you expect when most of it’s teachers have only the same commercial system they now teach on their resume, and therefore lack a broader perspective of knowledge, skills, and of the arts in general. There is a reason many are choosing to “cross train” (I hate that term) to make what they have learned work. If you examine most of the “real seniors,” (pre- 67 or so) most came from other arts already as black belts and were functional fighters when Parker began teaching the commercial concepts and opening schools to expand. Parker didn’t teach these guys (yes guys) to fight, he taught them to fight better.

But from that perspective, the extensions take on a significance that allows a student to examine different conceptual ideas of motion and it’s timing. Taken from that model, it may very well serve a positive purpose for some students expanding their perception of motion. But once again, it depends upon the student and more importantly, the teacher.
 
I also believe some of the extensions are attached to the wrong teks and are in the wrong sequence. As they are- some of the more common versions to the extensions are dangerous to the executioner. It seems that the best lesson in them is useless Vs. unusefull Vs. useful.

They are tools and I don't think I like the idea of getting rid of a tool. Even though I don't use a tool I may just want to look at it as a point of reference anyways.

:idea:
 
From what I have read in this discussion, and read in some of the magazines, mentioned herein, I get the impression that the SL4 curriculum, is the same, technique wise, as what you call Motion Kenpo. Obviously the execution would be some what different, but do you use the same technique lists?

--Dave
:asian:
 
Originally posted by D.Cobb
From what I have read in this discussion, and read in some of the magazines, mentioned herein, I get the impression that the SL4 curriculum, is the same, technique wise, as what you call Motion Kenpo. Obviously the execution would be some what different, but do you use the same technique lists?

--Dave
:asian:
Well yes, and no. 101 has been extended to 16 with 6 additional created techniques to address certain issues I found relevant to the first course (yellow) after Mr. Parker's death. Also certain techniques put forth for the commercial art do not serve a purpose when viewed from the perspectives and methodology parameters Ed Parker was teaching me as a law enforcement officer.

It is common knowldge many of these techniques were specifically created to "flesh out" the techniques list through a process called "category completion." Simply stated, an attack defense would be expanded though multiple techniques to propose various ideas of response. A right punch would have an idea that suggests you step back, step forward, move inside, move outside, move on top, and move under to "complete the category."

Although from an expansion perspective, this would seem to have merit, obviously you will have assaults that do not lend themselves well to all ideas of "category completion." It created on many occasions a great deal of redundancy and "ideas for ideas sake" rather than proper function. But if taken only as the "ideas" as intended, than you begin to understand why the "manuals" description of responses is so vague in many of its suggestions, choosing to describe, "what" with very little if any "how." For some this is a "bone of contention" who suggest Parker's last version of the manuals addresses the "how." In fact they do not any more than previous versions, and I have all his written material. A technique idea that states "right punch to the ribs," tells you "what to do," but doesn't address "how" you strike the ribs or even "where" exactly, the proper angle etc.

This is also why many of the pre sixties seniors did not necessarily embrace all of the techniques, with many feeling they were "unnecessary" and created answers to questions already better answered from their already effective perspective. This accounts for the many different points of view from different eras. People like Chuck Sullivan has always stayed conceptually in the late fifties with "simple function" over complex commercial ideas. The same can be said of Steve LaBounty who also would not necessarily subscribe to all of the techniques, having learned from a different and very effective perspective that didn't need quite so many different ideas for a simple assault.

Additionally other techniques were created to address offensive assaults not represented in the commercial art. Some are Parker ideas others more specifically mine, but clearly he an I agreed there were many things that need to be considered.

Shotgun/rifle (long guns), semi-automatic hand guns (which in some instances must be addressed differently than revolvers), handguns held high and/or sideways "street style," slashing blades, rear knife assaults, blades placed edge across the throat controling depth, or point underneath the chin controling height, armbar carotid chokes from the rear, etc. are all specific techniques addressed in SubLevel Four Kenpo interpretations.

Many of these could not be included in the "motion" commercial art because exection requires specifc mechanisms not addressed. A good example is a technique like "Twisted Twig." The attack is a wrist-flex throw, common in jiu-jitsu/aikido. First you must teach the attack so that students can execute the attack properly. Then you teach the defense. if you can't do one how can you learn the other? Most "com-mo Kenpo" schools teach the attacker to appraoch from the front, (wrong) and the student "hands" his attacker his hand and arm. Additionally the response is not functional.

So the question is "Why include them at all?" The answer is simple. Parker hoped his teachers would expand on what was obviously a deficiency and ask questions. But even if they didn't the techniqe was there as a reminder that that issue needed to be addressed. Now many students are finally beginning to figure out "why" some techniques don't/won't work and are asking questions many teachers can't answer because of their own limited experience relegated to only to the commercial Kenpo art. Many are attempting to fill in the holes by studying jiu-jitsu or grappling disciplines as well as other arts that address these ideas more specifically. For years I've heard kenpo students say, "That technique doesn't work," or "I would never try to use that technique for real." Don't blame the Kenpo, blame the teacher. "Captured Leaves," "Cutching Feathers," "Thrusting Prongs," "Courting the Tiger," "Locking Horns," etc. the list goes on. Teachers address these type techniques as "attempts" because they don't have the knowledge to instruct their students how to extricate themselves from the completed and very real attacks.

So once again, the answer is yes and no. Even techniques that have the same name are executed differently, but to the uneducated eye appear to be the same until the results is examined.

Simply no technique is executed exactly the same, (even if it looks the same), and all techniques have multiple levels of specific execution taking students in many directions according to skill level. That coupled with techniques that don't exist in commercial Kenpo make for a very unique perspective.

I actually have students who were black belts from the commercial art who have come from the east and west coast under prominent recognizable instructors, who enjoy the SubLevel Four Kenpo Concepts perspective and now wouldn't consider anything else. It's all a matter of perspective. Whatever suits your needs is where you should be.

Anyway one one level everything is 100% different, but on another you'd recognize at least 75%. Doing it however would be a different story. I hope that makes sense.
 
Originally posted by Doc
Well yes, and no. 101 has been extended to 16 with 6 additional created techniques to address certain issues I found relevant to the first course (yellow) after Mr. Parker's death. Also certain techniques put forth for the commercial art do not serve a purpose when viewed from the perspectives and methodology parameters Ed Parker was teaching me as a law enforcement officer.

It is common knowldge many of these techniques were specifically created to "flesh out" the techniques list through a process called "category completion." Simply stated, an attack defense would be expanded though multiple techniques to propose various ideas of response. A right punch would have an idea that suggests you step back, step forward, move inside, move outside, move on top, and move under to "complete the category."

Although from an expansion perspective, this would seem to have merit, obviously you will have assaults that do not lend themselves well to all ideas of "category completion." It created on many occasions a great deal of redundancy and "ideas for ideas sake" rather than proper function. But if taken only as the "ideas" as intended, than you begin to understand why the "manuals" description of responses is so vague in many of its suggestions, choosing to describe, "what" with very little if any "how." For some this is a "bone of contention" who suggest Parker's last version of the manuals addresses the "how." In fact they do not any more than previous versions, and I have all his written material. A technique idea that states "right punch to the ribs," tells you "what to do," but doesn't address "how" you strike the ribs or even "where" exactly, the proper angle etc.

This is also why many of the pre sixties seniors did not necessarily embrace all of the techniques, with many feeling they were "unnecessary" and created answers to questions already better answered from their already effective perspective. This accounts for the many different points of view from different eras. People like Chuck Sullivan has always stayed conceptually in the late fifties with "simple function" over complex commercial ideas. The same can be said of Steve LaBounty who also would not necessarily subscribe to all of the techniques, having learned from a different and very effective perspective that didn't need quite so many different ideas for a simple assault.

Additionally other techniques were created to address offensive assaults not represented in the commercial art. Some are Parker ideas others more specifically mine, but clearly he an I agreed there were many things that need to be considered.

Shotgun/rifle (long guns), semi-automatic hand guns (which in some instances must be addressed differently than revolvers), handguns held high and/or sideways "street style," slashing blades, rear knife assaults, blades placed edge across the throat controling depth, or point underneath the chin controling height, armbar carotid chokes from the rear, etc. are all specific techniques addressed in SubLevel Four Kenpo interpretations.

Many of these could not be included in the "motion" commercial art because exection requires specifc mechanisms not addressed. A good example is a technique like "Twisted Twig." The attack is a wrist-flex throw, common in jiu-jitsu/aikido. First you must teach the attack so that students can execute the attack properly. Then you teach the defense. if you can't do one how can you learn the other? Most "com-mo Kenpo" schools teach the attacker to appraoch from the front, (wrong) and the student "hands" his attacker his hand and arm. Additionally the response is not functional.

So the question is "Why include them at all?" The answer is simple. Parker hoped his teachers would expand on what was obviously a deficiency and ask questions. But even if they didn't the techniqe was there as a reminder that that issue needed to be addressed. Now many students are finally beginning to figure out "why" some techniques don't/won't work and are asking questions many teachers can't answer because of their own limited experience relegated to only to the commercial Kenpo art. Many are attempting to fill in the holes by studying jiu-jitsu or grappling disciplines as well as other arts that address these ideas more specifically. For years I've heard kenpo students say, "That technique doesn't work," or "I would never try to use that technique for real." Don't blame the Kenpo, blame the teacher. "Captured Leaves," "Cutching Feathers," "Thrusting Prongs," "Courting the Tiger," "Locking Horns," etc. the list goes on. Teachers address these type techniques as "attempts" because they don't have the knowledge to instruct their students how to extricate themselves from the completed and very real attacks.

So once again, the answer is yes and no. Even techniques that have the same name are executed differently, but to the uneducated eye appear to be the same until the results is examined.

Simply no technique is executed exactly the same, (even if it looks the same), and all techniques have multiple levels of specific execution taking students in many directions according to skill level. That coupled with techniques that don't exist in commercial Kenpo make for a very unique perspective.

I actually have students who were black belts from the commercial art who have come from the east and west coast under prominent recognizable instructors, who enjoy the SubLevel Four Kenpo Concepts perspective and now wouldn't consider anything else. It's all a matter of perspective. Whatever suits your needs is where you should be.

Anyway one one level everything is 100% different, but on another you'd recognize at least 75%. Doing it however would be a different story. I hope that makes sense.

It does make sense, thank you. I know when I was training in American Kenpo, I was always questioning but never getting the answers I was looking for. I had to change styles to find what it was I was after.
Unfortunately my instructor had the attitude that, "That pressure point **** doesn't work!"
Credit where it's due though, on the day I left he told me to go and get qualified to teach, then come back and show us where it fits with our stuff.
I have found with my limited knowledge of American Kenpo, that what I am learning now fits in quite well with some minor changes in execution.
One day I'll have to come see you and stay for a while:)

--Dave

:asian:
 
Originally posted by D.Cobb
It does make sense, thank you. I know when I was training in American Kenpo, I was always questioning but never getting the answers I was looking for. I had to change styles to find what it was I was after.
Unfortunately my instructor had the attitude that, "That pressure point **** doesn't work!"
Credit where it's due though, on the day I left he told me to go and get qualified to teach, then come back and show us where it fits with our stuff.
I have found with my limited knowledge of American Kenpo, that what I am learning now fits in quite well with some minor changes in execution.
One day I'll have to come see you and stay for a while:)

--Dave

:asian:
That would be cool and I look forward to it. But I have one caution. It can be very addicting to have your questions answered satisfactorily, as well as physically demonstrated. I have a couple of black belts that followed me from the east coast to study after attending one of my seminars. One even brought his fiancé with him so he didn't have to go back. Although he brought sand to the beach, he's happy starting over in Kenpo. You can get "hooked.":asian:
As far as that "pressure point Sh••t not working, he's right. Very few have the knowledge to make it work and teach you to make it work in "real" time because so much knowledge is missing. I was lucky and had a very knowledgeable teacher around who wanted to share things with me and did.
 
Originally posted by Doc
That would be cool and I look forward to it. But I have one caution. It can be very addicting to have your questions answered satisfactorily, as well as physically demonstrated. I have a couple of black belts that followed me from the east coast to study after attending one of my seminars. One even brought his fiancé with him so he didn't have to go back. Although he brought sand to the beach, he's happy starting over in Kenpo. You can get "hooked.":asian:

I must admit, that's why I stayed where I am. I am addicted, and during holidays I get to having withdrawal symptoms. It drives my missus nuts.:D

As far as that "pressure point Sh••t not working, he's right. Very few have the knowledge to make it work and teach you to make it work in "real" time because so much knowledge is missing.

That's exactly what my current instructor said to me when I asked him about the subject.


I was lucky and had a very knowledgeable teacher around who wanted to share things with me and did.

That's how I feel about Master Monea.:asian:
I think it would be good, however to see a slightly different mind set, or take on it though.


--Dave

:asian:
 
Originally posted by D.Cobb
I must admit, that's why I stayed where I am. I am addicted, and during holidays I get to having withdrawal symptoms. It drives my missus nuts.:D



That's exactly what my current instructor said to me when I asked him about the subject.




That's how I feel about Master Monea.:asian:
I think it would be good, however to see a slightly different mind set, or take on it though.


--Dave

:asian:
Sounds like a plan, it's a date.
 
Doc, in our school, we are taught that we want to finish the situation with minimal damage to our selves and our opponent. Now, whilst this is an admirable idea, I fell that there are times when it could be good to do some damage to the bad guy. Maybe it is just a throw back to the days when I learnt American Kenpo, but I feel that there are certain people out there that need to be busted up a little, you know, pedaphiles rapists etc.

My question is, what is your thinking on such things and what do you teach your students, with regard to their mind sets?

--Dave

:asian:
 
Originally posted by D.Cobb
Doc, in our school, we are taught that we want to finish the situation with minimal damage to our selves and our opponent. Now, whilst this is an admirable idea, I fell that there are times when it could be good to do some damage to the bad guy. Maybe it is just a throw back to the days when I learnt American Kenpo, but I feel that there are certain people out there that need to be busted up a little, you know, pedaphiles rapists etc.

My question is, what is your thinking on such things and what do you teach your students, with regard to their mind sets?

--Dave

:asian:

The highest expression of martial arts skill and ethics has always been in the most difficult aspects of the art. That is the ability to subdue and or control without significant injury to you or your opponent.

As stated in the American Kenpo ethical creed, "right or wrong" can be and is a personal decision at the moment that can only be made by you for only you will suffer the joys or consequences of your own actions.

My students are taught ethical answers to self defense in a modern world that is more than effective. Anything more is there responsibility.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top