technique forms

[kevin kilroe]

Mr. Hale,

Thanks for the reply. I never thought of it in that light. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks also to Teej and the rest for your insights, although Thundering Mantis went over my head some of the things he said.

Kevin Kilroe

 

[Rich_Hale]

Mr. Hale,

Thanks for the reply. . . although Thundering Mantis went over my head some of the things he said.

Kevin Kilroe

Don't feel alone Kevin, Thundering Mantis lost me at "Hello"

 

[Flying Crane]

My quick, and easy, answer to your question is Mr. Parker did not choose from among his self defense techniques to create the forms, rather he drew from his forms to create the self defense techniques.

To say that our forms were created from techniques would be akin to saying the English alphabet was created from an authors favorite sentences, instead of an authors favorite sentences being created from the English alphabet.

I don't understand your statements here, and wonder if you could clarify what you mean.

Regarding the first statement, this just doesn't make sense to me. The movements in the forms are very specific and precise, and clearly come from self defense techniques that already existed before the forms. They may have been modified to make them fit better into the context of a form, and of course they can be applied and interpreted in many different ways, but they clearly were established self defense techniques to begin with. To claim that the forms were created before the techniques implies that the forms were created with a random series of movements that are translatable into useful self defense techniques thru sheer luck and coincidence. It also implies that the creator of the form did not know how to use the movements that went into the form, but rather threw movement together in the hopes that it would later prove useful. I can't believe that the creator of a form would not be more thoughtful than this, and wouldn't create a form with techniques that he already felt were valuable. You did acknowledge that at least some of the techniques already did exist before the forms, but you didn't really clarify your statement here. I personally believe that all the techniques in the form already existed separately before they were used in the creation of the form. Why these specific techniques were used instead of others may never be answered as Mr. Parker is no longer here to answer that question, but I just can't believe that the chronology could have been different from what I have stated.

Regarding your second statement above, it seems to me that the opposite is true. To say that forms were created from techniques is more logically like stating that words are created using the alphabet, and Sentences are created using these words. The progression is from simplest to more complex. Alphabet -> Words -> Sentences/Stories. Basic Movements (i.e. punch, kick, block = Alphabet) -> Self Defense Techniques (Words) -> Forms (Sentences/Stories). What you state is more like saying we first have stories and from those we create words, and from those we create an alphabet.

I am not trying to nit pic, but rather am trying to understand what you state, since It just doesn't make sense to me. Thx.

 

[Rich_Hale]

Flying Crane,

Not to worry my friend. I take your questions as I’m sure you mean them to be.

First, I’m pleased that you asked the same questions that I struggled with when I wrote my original response. It is always difficult to write a comprehensive answer without taking up more space that I feel may be appropriate in the forum.

I agree that most of the techniques existed in some form before the forms and that some for of these techniques were used in the creation of the forms. It all comes back to which came first – the chicken or the egg?

May I suggest to you that techniques themselves were not created singular in purpose. Meaning that not all the techniques were created because they were the best defense against a specific attack, nor were they created only because they best demonstrated a series of basic movements that would work well inside a form.

Mr. Parker was not the kind of man who would forsake the practicality of a technique just so he could use the technique in a form, but he also often told me not to depend on any specific techniques to defend myself.

Imagine if any one of us were to start, right now, from scratch, and create a martial arts system structured similar to Ed Parkers Kenpo. We would more than likely be working on the creation of our self defense techniques and forms simultaneously. It is very unlikely that we would create, either all our techniques, or all our forms, independently - without considering how they would interact with one another.

This being the case I would expect us to keep the needs of the overall system in mind while creating our techniques. For example: Our first technique may use a left inward block against a right punch (so we could immediately follow up with a powerful right punch of our own). Next, we may choose to create a technique that used a right inward block against a right punch and follow up with a left punch, even though a left punch, in most cases, is less powerful than our right.

I think we would choose to do this, because even before we started work on our forms, we would recognize the need to develop both the right and left sides of our bodies.

So let’s say that we did create most of our techniques before our forms, but we did so with the concept of in/out, out/in, up/down, down/up, left/right, right/left, punch/kick, kick/punch, etc. in mind.

Now, when we start work on our forms we would most certainly draw from among our self defense techniques for their creation, but instead of simply choosing our favorite techniques, or even our most (street) effective techniques for the forms, we would likely choose techniques, that best represented our entire alphabet of motion – in hopes of developing a well-rounded system.

Now, let’s look at this from another angle. Let’s say that someone came to us with a full set of forms that clearly illustrated all the movements of their system. If these forms were well though out and clearly contained the necessary movements - I, for one, would feel comfortable taking these forms and drawing from them to create a series of self defense techniques that could be used in actual combat.

On the other hand if someone came to me with several hundred self defense techniques (that were based on nothing more than their street effectiveness and the favor they held with their master) and asked that I use these techniques to create a series of forms that would encompass all the moves necessary to represent a complete system – I would be most hesitant.

So, saying that, I believe, our forms were created before our self defense techniques can also be expressed by saying that, I believe, our self defense techniques were created, from the beginning, with our forms in mind.

To reference your statement: To claim that the FORMS were created before the TECHNIQUES implies that the FORMS were created with a random series of movements that are translatable into useful SELF DEFENSE TECHNIQUES thru sheer luck and coincidence.

Let’s modify this statement - slightly: To claim that the TECHNIQUES were created before the FORMS implies that the TECHNIQUES were created with a random series of movements that are translatable into useful FORMS thru sheer luck and coincidence.

Like you, I’m not trying to nit pick, or be arbitrary, but to me, it is more unbelievable that our forms could have been created out of a random series of self defense techniques that the other way around.

To clarify this point further: I have never said, or thought, our forms were “a random series of movements”. Much to the contrary, (at the risk of creating more controversy) I have more respect for the integrity of our forms than I do for our techniques.

By that, I mean to say that if we were to alter our forms (to any major degree) we would risk loosing the very essence of our art. Where as if we were to alter our techniques (after first attempting to master their ideal phase) we would be doing exactly what Mr. Parker wanted us to do. This goes back to learning the English alphabet (without adding swirls and curls to the letters) then once the alphabet is (somewhat) mastered, using that alphabet to create great and beautiful works of the written word by expanding on the basic lettering with individual styles of writing.

In response to your quote: “The movements in the forms are very specific and precise, and clearly come from self defense techniques that already existed before the forms.”

Keep this in mind. When I started in Ed Parkers Kenpo (1972) there were 10 techniques for Yellow Belt and 32 techniques each for Orange, Purple, Blue, and Green. This comes to a total of 138 techniques. Brown Belt techniques were a repeat of the Orange Belt techniques with extensions, which we referred to as “Green/Orange”.

Later, when Mr. Parker modified our system to have 24 techniques, per belt, he needed to add 16 more techniques to make up the difference between our original 138 techniques and the new requirement of 154 techniques. Mr. Parker did this, in part, by pulling several more techniques from the forms, modifying them to make them more complete (stand-a-lone) self defense techniques.

Even having done that, there are still a number of “combinations” in the forms that have not been extracted and used as self defense techniques, such as, Darting Leaves in Form 4, and Hopping Crane in Form 5.

I know this doesn’t clearly indicate that the forms existed before the techniques, nor did I mean it to, but it does indicate that Mr. Parker clearly created a series of self defense-like movements that existed in the forms – prior to their formal introduction as self defense techniques.

I, very much, agree with the progression being from simplest to the more complex. This statement does not actually disagree with my thinking.

Basic blocks, strikes, kicks, etc., are letters / basics.
Several letters together can create a word / technique.
Several words together can create a sentence / form.

I’m not in disagreement with this concept. I’m simply saying that in order to create a series of forms, in which to store our entire alphabet of motion, Mr. Parker didn’t go to his arsenal of self defense techniques picking and choosing his favorites, or most street effective.

Overall, I believe Mr. Parker always had our forms in mind during the creation of our self defense techniques, thus creating techniques that would add to and compliment the forms.

By the way, my entire involvement in this topic is in hopes of those reading this may develop a better understanding of the relationship between our forms and techniques. Too many people think our techniques are based purely on their street effectiveness and fail to see that they are also an extension of our forms.

Form techniques are the very essence of a techniques ideal phase. Your opponent is, generally, about your same size, but can come at you fast or slow, strong or weak. He, or she, never surprises you with the wrong attack, or fails to respond to your defense – no matter how poorly executed.

Self Defense techniques on the other hand are a method of taking all our “perfect form” techniques closer to a real world environment. They enable us to deal with all shapes and sizes of attackers and all the un-ideal situations that come with them.

Mr. Parker knew we needed a method of practicing the ideal phase of defense and attack - forms. He also knew we needed a method of defending and attacking in a more realistic environment - self defense techniques.

He also knew we would need to be proficient in the reality of street combat – free will and alcohol.

Take care my friend and thank you for a so well thought out and formulated response to my opinion.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane,






So, saying that, I believe, our forms were created before our self defense techniques can also be expressed by saying that, I believe, our self defense techniques were created, from the beginning, with our forms in mind.




Later, when Mr. Parker modified our system to have 24 techniques, per belt, he needed to add 16 more techniques to make up the difference between our original 138 techniques and the new requirement of 154 techniques. Mr. Parker did this, in part, by pulling several more techniques from the forms, modifying them to make them more complete (stand-a-lone) self defense techniques.

Even having done that, there are still a number of “combinations” in the forms that have not been extracted and used as self defense techniques, such as, Darting Leaves in Form 4, and Hopping Crane in Form 5.




I’m not in disagreement with this concept. I’m simply saying that in order to create a series of forms, in which to store our entire alphabet of motion, Mr. Parker didn’t go to his arsenal of self defense techniques picking and choosing his favorites, or most street effective.

Overall, I believe Mr. Parker always had our forms in mind during the creation of our self defense techniques, thus creating techniques that would add to and compliment the forms.

Mr. Hale,

thank you for taking the time to write such an extensive response. I think the first and third portions listed above summarize best what you are saying, and this is something that I can understand.

With regard to the second portion, I have some comments. Before I begin, I would like to clarify my perspective, which may help you understand why I am asking and stating what I am. I never studied EPAK kenpo, but rather Tracy kenpo. I understand there are some basic disagreements between the two camps regarding certain elements of history and I am not interested in pushing one as better or more correct, etc. Frankly, I don't care. But, it does give me a different perspective, that you may find interesting (of course I don't know if you have any experience with Tracys, so this may be all old hat to you anyway.) At any rate, please understand that it is not my desire to start an argument, but rather to open the communication and see where there may be common ground, or either/both of us may gain some enlightenment from seeing a different point of view.

Tracys claim to have kept everything that they originally learned from Mr. Parker. True or not, I am not judging, just going by what I have been told, and what I have read. Their curriculim consists of ten self defense techniques for Yellow, 30 self defense techniqes each from Orange thru Fourth Black, all of which are presented as "new" techniques, but which in reality are often similar to previous ones, and 41 for Fifth Black, all but one of which are just more variations on previous techniques. Anyway, there are a whole lot, in my opinion too many, and very cumbersome. I have eliminated many myself for these reasons, but that is not for this thread. Starting with Short Three and going at least thru Number Five (I hadn't learned beyond five, so I cannot comment beyond that) the movements found in the forms are directly from the technique curriculum. Some movements in Short and Long Two are also very similar to many techniques, but they aren't presented this way formally. What this suggests to me is that all the techniques in the forms did in fact already exist prior to the creation of the forms.

So how do I account for this? When Mr. Parker later changed his art and the Tracys did not follow these changes, I wonder if Mr. Parker perhaps took a while to finally decide which techniques would be formally kept, and which would be eliminated. Perhaps during this process he changed his mind numerous times, eliminating, re-adding, and eliminating the same techniques over and over during this process. But since the forms had already been created, he had reasons for wanting to keep them, which would by default mean that the techniques found in the forms are also kept, even if they had been eliminated from the formal curriculum by that time. The other option would be to make changes to the forms, to reflect the final decisions about the formal technique curriculum.

A few years ago I witnessed a friend's brown belt test at John Sepulveda's school. I had a chance to watch the students perform their forms, and I felt they were close enough to be considered identical to my own versions, so it does not look like Mr. Parker made these kinds of changes.

Anyway, these are my observations and thoughts, and I would welcome your comments.

michael

 

[Rich_Hale]

Michael,

I can see your point, but for some reason you insist that "the movements found in the forms are directly from the technique curriculum", instead of considering that it may be the other way around.

So let's say that you, and I, created a martial arts system together and for what ever reason, we created our self defense techniques first, then we created our forms based on those techniques. But when we taught our system to our students we taught the forms first, then taught our self defense techniques second.

Because we chose to teach our forms first, our students may, incorrectly, assume we created the forms first.

On the other hand, let's say we had created our forms first, and then created our techniques based on our forms. But, for some reason we decided to teach our students the techniques first, then our forms.

Our students may, again incorrectly, assume that we created our techniques first, then our forms.

All this to say, that the order in which we are presented with material and the emphases given to it, can have a great deal to do with our opinion of its creation order.

My belief is based on the importance Mr. Parker placed on my forms and conversations as to the application of the movements within them. Not to say that he didn't teach, and tweak, my techniques, he did, but he clearly paid more attention to and seemed to be more concerned about how I did my forms.

On the other hand, you may have come from a more technique based system of Kenpo, leaving you with the impression that they came into being before the forms.

Too bad it never occurred to me to ask Mr. Parker which came first (the chicken or the egg). I guess I can just toss that in with all the other questions I wish I would have asked.

Either way, it's a fascinating art and it's been a pleasure discussing it with you.

 

[Flying Crane]

Mr. Hale,

thank you again for your reply. You have a good point, in that how the system was taught would have a strong influence on how one perceives the structure of the system. I shall have to ponder this some more.

In the mean time, consider this: In the Tracys system, all the techniques have individual names, which I understand is true in EPAK system. I don't know if Tracys invented the names they used, or if these names were created by Mr. Parker, or were handed down from Mr. Chow or the earlier lineage. I do understand that EPAK names are now different from Tracys names, even for those where the technique is essentially the same. At any rate, they were all considered individual enough to have unique names. In addition to the techniques that are contained in the forms (at least from my vantage point), are many many more techniques that are not contained in any forms. But they are all part of the same larger technique curriculum. This at least gives the impression that the forms were created from this body of techniques that already existed. Now I could be wrong about this, and this is the first that I have had a chance to discuss this with someone who held a different opinion (truthfully, I had never considered it before). It is certainly giving me pause to think about this assumption that I have had for over twenty years now, and makes for some interesting consideration.

Given my assumptions, I had always wondered why certain techniques found their way into a form, while others had not. It seemed to me that the project was 'unfinished' in a way, and that more forms were needed to encompass the entire curriculum. I always found it easier to remember techniques when they were in the context of a series of forms, rather than as individual ideas floating around in my memory. I saw forms as a convenient way to catalog the techniques of a system, and ensure the entire system is being practiced.

Anyway, comments are welcome.

michael

 

[Rich_Hale]

Michael,

If you are looking at forms as "a convenient way to catalog the techniques of a system" and you are already overwhelmed with the vast number of techniques in Kenpo, you better hope that I am right about the forms being the foundation from which techniques were drawn, and not the other way around.

You see, the forms in any system of martial arts (that I know of) are relatively finite. Meaning you can only create so many "basic" combinations, i.e., in, out, up, down, right-left, left-right, and so on, until you find yourself duplicating combinations. This is why I believe so many martial arts share common forms, but establish themselves as being unique systems based on their individual fighting and self defense techniques (among other things).

This is not just true for systems that are practiced in the same country, like Shotokan and Shito Ryu being major systems in Japan, or Tae Kwon Do and Tang Soo Do, in Korea. Just the other night I was teaching a Shotokan form to one of my students, who is also a 3rd Black in Tang Soo Do. With slight modifications, he knew the form better than I did.

You can even see it in offshoots of Ed Parkers Kenpo. Most of the systems that set themselves apart from Mr. Parker still use forms that are relatively unchanged. I have yet to see an offshoot system even change the name of an Ed Parker form. Their independence seems to come from their interpretation and/or modification of the self defense techniques.

On the other hand, technique combinations (within any system) are truly infinite. This is why Mr. Parker, and every other instructor I have ever trained with, told me that after I have learned the base techniques, I was to alter them, as needed, to insure their effectiveness for any given situation.

Back to the other hand again, I can't think of a single instructor who suggested I modify my forms in any, but the slightest of ways.

So if you are right, and the forms are a place for us to catalog our techniques - God have mercy on me, because my little brain just doesn't have room for that many catalogs.

This doesn't reinforce my position on the original topic, but I thought you may find the idea of learning another new form every time someone comes up with dozen, or so, new techniques as frightening as I do.

 

[Chop Stick]

opps lost my post.

 

[Doc]

Most of you are aware of my position relative to the "commercial" kenpo many teach and its "motion" based perspective. Nevertheless Mr. Billings points are all well taken. What he meant as I understood it, was it was about the level of understanding of what you learn. many/most do forms with a limited understanding of what they are actually doing, and how it can actually be applied.

The breakdown comes in the suggestion that recognizable techniques themselves in the forms are the basis of a thought process of application. They are not, except on the most elementary level. Mr. Parker, (in the motion system) suggested things that need to be examined over and above the technique or the form. He was attempting to promote a thought process.

The misunderstanding that most have about forms is the techniques are the application. This is a limited Japanese perspective call "bunkai." But in the tradition of Chinese Forms, they are indexes of information not of strict application, (although they can be found). But then a "high five" could be a heel-palm as well. All human movement has the potential to be used aggresively so finding appplications should be no surprise.

Many of the movements in some Chinese Forms seem impractical or dangerous to the practicioner, and at the least "wasted." But how can you examine something you know nothing about because of limited knowledge and then cast judgement on its validity?

The trick is to examine the form for the information it is attempting to steer you toward, and extrapolate the application from the info NOT the technique itself. This is what Parker was doing. He was telling you what you don't know and that you can only get it from someone pointing it out to you. It has very limited "discoverability." Parker was saying, "Ask me." Unfortunately, and apparently not enough did in their rush to learn as many forms as they could so they could compte and/or promote. But that's the business. Meanwhile Parker was working on Form One (now Short One).

Does anyone really know how to step back into a neutral bow with structure and index their feet so they can not be pushed over and execute a properly indexed inward block that cannot be collapsed? That's what I saw him working on up to the day he passed.

 

[Seabrook]

keep in mind that Mr. Parker did not create forms 7 & 8. Like the staff set, forms 7 & 8 were created by Kenpo students, not Mr. Parker, so you will not find Mr. Parkers reasons within these other forms.

FYI Teej
[great question Mr. Kilroe]

While most Kenpoists claim that Chuck Sullivan created the Staff Set, actually that is not true. The Staff Set came from a Chinese Kung Fu expert that taught Ed Parker. Once he had the movements memorized, 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.

The decision of Ed Parker to include a knife form in his American Kenpo curriculum stemmed from several sources. These included Gil Hibben’s knife set he had created for his black belt thesis, watching such knife experts as Mike Pick, and utilizing the experience Parker had gained by learning the double butterfly swords from various Kung Fu masters.

Over time, Ed Parker developed his own theories, concepts, and principles to knife fighting and thus developed the double knife form. The very few people who had learned the form from Ed Parker were those who in Parker’s opinion had mastered the art of Kenpo. Still, Ed Parker was in the process of revamping the form prior to his death to deal with some of the techniques that supposedly were dangerous to try to employ with the knife.

Likewise, Ed Parker also created Long Form 7.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com
​

 

[Doc]

While most Kenpoists claim that Chuck Sullivan created the Staff Set, actually that is not true. The Staff Set came from a Chinese Kung Fu expert that taught Ed Parker.

Correct. This came from Ark Wong.

The decision of Ed Parker to include a knife form in his American Kenpo curriculum stemmed from several sources. These included Gil Hibben’s knife set he had created for his black belt thesis, watching such knife experts as Mike Pick,
​

Mr. Parker had always considered blades even as a young boy as most did from the Pacific Rim, Polynesian culture. Even though Gil's work is exemplary, he did not derive any particular inspiration from his work, nor Pick's "expertise." The idea of a knife Set was always a possibility, but Parker considered it a very low priority in the overall scheme of things. Kenpo was always conceived, and continues as an "empty hand" discipline. It was only the push from forms competitors who were desireous of enetering the then new weapons divisions in tournaments. The same was the partial driving force ultimately for the settles upon "club set." Parker had the first and largest open tournament in the world, and it made good business sense to support the idea as divisions grew, much as he did with "sparring."

Over time, Ed Parker developed his own theories, concepts, and principles to knife fighting and thus developed the double knife form.

... which was originally a set idea, that was elevated to a form to fill the curriculum. Originally a single blade set transformed to double.

The very few people who had learned the form from Ed Parker were those who in Parker’s opinion had mastered the art of Kenpo.

Definitely not true. Those who learned it were those who were available and who "bugged him" enough. This included one of my students at the time, Pat Salantri. It was not the "holy grail" handed down. Proximity, time, and willingness. That's all.

Still, Ed Parker was in the process of revamping the form prior to his death to deal with some of the techniques that supposedly were dangerous to try to employ with the knife.

Ed Parker had no intent on ever changing or revamping this "form." In fact he lamented having taught it to anyone at all. Its total existence was for competition purposes and he held personally that his Kenpo Philosophy had no need for this "weapons" form beyond an intellectual exercise.

Likewise, Ed Parker also created Long Form 7.

Technically sir you are correct. Originally a "set," like the "knife set" it was re-named as Form 7. The original "lost" club "sets" were actually much more sophisticated and useful, and I have elements of them, but Mr. Parker settled on the simple competition version based on known techniques with sticks in your hands.​

 

[Atlanta-Kenpo]

Doc,

I have been told by a very reliable source (Guess who?) that Ed Parker did not create form 7 or 8 but had approved them. If that is the case why is it a "secret" who actually created them?

Do you care to let us know who the creator was?

 

[Doc]

Doc,

I have been told by a very reliable source (Guess who?) that Ed Parker did not create form 7 or 8 but had approved them. If that is the case why is it a "secret" who actually created them?

Do you care to let us know who the creator was?

Sure I'll tell you. It was Ed Parker Sr. Tell your reliable source, he/she is (at best) incorrect.

Ed Parker was not prone to "claim" the work of others, and lived by a philosophy of always giving credit where credit was due, even if it hurt. Besides I watched him develop both. I watched him create several "club sets" and ultimately settle on what most call "form 7" now. Same for "knife set" form 8. Is it possible that he had some "input" from others? Of course. He asked my ideas on the "original club sets" from a policeman's point of view carrying a baton in uniform, and we came up with some pretty good stuff - but I don't claim anything. When Parker said he created something you could trust it was his.

 

[Seabrook]

Technically sir you are correct. Originally a "set," like the "knife set" it was re-named as Form 7. The original "lost" club "sets" were actually much more sophisticated and useful, and I have elements of them, but Mr. Parker settled on the simple competition version based on known techniques with sticks in your hands.

Doc, I have to humbly ask, could Long 7 really be good in competition? It would be the LAST of my choices for any type of competition, and I have seen it done by "a high-ranked EPAK black belt" that I competed against when I travelled to California in 200 and didn't think it looked good (nor did the judges apparently).

Also, with your knowledge and expertise, please....there's no need to call me "sir"....Jamie will do.


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Thanks

 

[Seabrook]

Ooops, I meant to say "2000", not year "200", LOL.


Jamie Seabrook

 

[Doc]

Ooops, I meant to say "2000", not year "200", LOL.


Jamie Seabrook

You were beginning to scare me about your age sir, uh, Jamie. I agree with you. Especially because I know the origin of form 7, it's like a bad joke like other material as well. Parker was "pressured" into creating it, so they got what they asked for. Primarily because he didn't believe in it anyway.

It was a simple means to an end, and all the principles they would have seen had they been patient, are gone. The first club set he started was a single club as he worked toward doubles, but quite a few people stated they needed to have 2 clubs "like in Kali/Escrima," (you could see the smoke come out of his ears) so that's what they got. A crappy competition form with none of his principles, based on techniqes already in exsistence.

Mr. Parker was very (read very) sensitive about his material, but he was also very receptive to constructive criticism. I learned early on that if you criticized something, make prettydam sure you had something to contribute as an alternative, then he would listen. But to just say you didn't think something was good or you didn't like it, would seriously tick him off.

We had some pretty good arguments and my senior students eyes would get really big. They didn't understand that sometimes that's how we hashed out information. Sometimes, he would get mad and I wouldn't hear from him for a week. Then he would call and say, "Hey, let's go to the movies." Then I knew I'd won!

Side note: I call everyone sir/ma'am regardless of age or rank until given a reason not to, or until given permission to call them something else - and especially people you have not formally met. Even when I teach, I call students of all rank sir - Jamie.

"Respect should always be a two way street." - Ed Parker Sr.

 

[KenpoDave]

My quick, and easy, answer to your question is Mr. Parker did not choose from among his self defense techniques to create the forms, rather he drew from his forms to create the self defense techniques.

I am fairly certain this is incorrect. The techniques were around before the forms.

To say that our forms were created from techniques would be akin to saying the English alphabet was created from an authors favorite sentences, instead of an authors favorite sentences being created from the English alphabet.

This looks backwards to me, unless you are saying that the forms are the alphabet and the techniques are the sentences. Which also does not make sense. In grammar, the alphabet is taught first. In the development of language, though, the alphabet is created from the words already in place, so delving too deep into that analogy will get us nowhere.

 

[Doc]

I am fairly certain this is incorrect. The techniques were around before the forms.

Correct sir, many techniques were already in existence when Parker had no forms at all and was "borrowing" forms and sets from the Chinese Arts.

 

[kevin kilroe]

Doc, then why did he choose those particular techniques to put in the forms?

Kevin