Tracy's Kenpo

[TheEdge883]

So how far did it fall? This would be really cool to share what insights you discovered with us.

The best comparison I saw was a chart listing similar techniques (Tracy and EPAK) with their respective names. It made it easier to communicate when discussing techniques.

- Ceicei

I'd also like to know this. I have always wondered what technical differences there are between the two schools, but can't afford to buy some Al Tracy tapes.

I have purchased the Tracy's kata guide off ebay (i collect anything kenpo) and did kind of figure out their terms and stances, but I would like to see how it's done, rather than how it's written.

 

[Ceicei]

Ceicei if you still have a copy can you please post it?

Thanks,
MJ

Well, the one I have is a partial list and cannot take credit for it. The full list of the comparison with clickable links that describe each technique is found under "The Flame" archives over at http://www.kenponet.com website. If you go there, do give these links a click, they will show you how the technique is done and you can compare the similarities and differences. As you requested, I have posted the partial list.

Edited:

Post got messed up! I need to straighten it out. Be right back... (or better yet, just go over there). I have to change the codes with my wordperfect document into html to get it to post properly here.

- Ceicei

 

[Rob Broad]

Having experienced both systems I would say there are some definite differences. Terminology is a major difference. The Tracy has more techniques and more variations just look at techniques like Crash Of The Eagle parts A-E in Orange Belt and the Crash Of The Eagle Part 2 A - I in Purple Belt. The Tracy has taken almost every possible sistuation and created a technique for it, and for different attacker positions in the defense. EPAK has fewer techniques but then there is also the extension. EPAK prefers to let the student expand and learn parts on their own through experimentation where the Tracy system has everything laid out. I have also notice a difference in the application of the technique.

 

[Goldendragon7]

So how far did the apple fall?
- Ceicei

Well, as apples that "fall off" the tree goes........ it is obvious that the apple was from the same tree. The mere fact that it "fell off" (or why) is the issue. Some apples fall off at full maturity... others fall before they are ripe or have reached their fullest potential of size and nutrients from the parent tree.

This would be really cool to share what insights you discovered with us.
- Ceicei

This would be quite lengthy and probably not the place to outline differences that have occurred over the past 30 + years since Tracy broke away to form their own particular version of what Ed Parker started and then continued to develop and improve on till his passing.

Needless to say, after I became a student of the Late SGM Ed Parker, I clearly realized the differences and was glad to come home and remain with the parent tree and become a fruitful seed in his orchard.
:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

It seems to me that the difference is in the names of the techniques (eg. Grip of Death in EPAK = Headlock A in Tracys), again, what is the difference?
Chuck

Yes, many (not all) of the names are one difference but that is the least of the comparisons. The main issues are in exactly how, what and why you are executing the movements within any specific technique. Also, EPAK has many "Kenpo Tools" that were developed/refined and evolved by Mr. Parker after Tracy departed.

:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

I have always wondered what technical differences there are between the two schools, but can't afford to buy some Al Tracy tapes.

You still won't find what you are looking for there. You will find the "Tracy" version and several hundred technique variations for their system that he has developed over the years.

I have purchased the Tracy's kata guide off ebay (I collect anything kenpo) and did kind of figure out their terms and stances, but I would like to see how it's done, rather than how it's written.

Now there ya' go.......... I think it's the How's Why's that you are after, and that's what you are seeking.

:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Having experienced both systems I would say there are some definite differences.

Agreed

Terminology is a major difference.

I again agree with you Rob, as well as many other major useful "Kenpo Tools" such as: the Universal Pattern, Equation formula, Master Keys, The ASM, Web of Knowledge, Principles, Philosophy/Sayings, 8 considerations, 3 divisions of the Art, numerous Drills and training aids, etc. etc.

The Tracy has more techniques and more variations just look at techniques like Crash Of The Eagle parts A-E in Orange Belt and the Crash Of The Eagle Part 2 A - I in Purple Belt.

Yes, apparently the Tracy system philosophy is teach "more is better", as to the number of self defense scenarios. We in EPAK call this phenomena "variable expansion".

The Tracy has taken almost every possible situation and created a technique for it, and for different attacker positions in the defense.

Well, it is realistically impossible to show or create or recreate "every possible situation" that could occur in any given self defense situation but they have created many (600 +) different possibilities for the students to examine and memorize within their base system.

EPAK has fewer techniques but then there is also the extension. EPAK prefers to let the student expand and learn parts on their own through experimentation

Yes, 154 to be exact, but the emphasis or difference in philosophy, is to develop a keen understanding of the base movements (Master Keys) and then be able to formulate "extemporaneously" unlimited variations.

The Tracy system has everything laid out.

Well, it does explore/ record for student memorization numerous variations of their self defense scenarios... if that's what you mean.

I have also notice a difference in the application of the technique.

Yes, there are many interesting application variables.

:asian:

 

[TheEdge883]

Now there ya' go.......... I think it's the How's Why's that you are after, and that's what you are seeking.
:asian:

Ahh ok good deal then. I can understand that. I guess that's what I like most about American Kenpo, it seems more flexible and allows for more personal tailoring.

 

[RCastillo]

I can relate. I asked the same questions.....26 years ago. I did the comparisons and found out how far the apple fell from the tree.

:asian:

It's true, I admit it; I'm related to the Goldendragon! :uhyeah:

 

[Goldendragon7]

It's true, I admit it; I'm related to the Goldendragon! :uhyeah:

Hi...Ya Bro.....
:wavey: .... :whip:.......:boxing:..... (brotherly love)

 

[jfarnsworth]

It's true, I admit it; I'm related to the Goldendragon! :uhyeah:

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!! :idunno: I never thought it was possible. %think%

 

[KenpoDave]

Yes, apparently the Tracy system philosophy is teach "more is better", as to the number of self defense scenarios. We in EPAK call this phenomena "variable expansion".

Maybe. If kenpo is a language, following EP's alphabet of motion analogy, why is it wrong that Tracy's has a large vocabulary? "True creativity lies in a firm foundation of knowledge and discipline." In other words, by exposing students to so many technques and variations, I feel that when this variable expansion occurs, there is more of a chance of actually advancing the art. By limiting the exposure to techniques and situations, is it possible that people in EPAK are creating the same "new techniques" that everyone else is creating?

And, anyone familiar with the whole of the Tracy System understands that the techniques are not 600 unique, completely different techniques. They are simply a way of exercising the basic techniques in differing scenarios.

Ed Parker sculpted a masterpiece, and left it for people to study and learn from. Al Tracy has given people the rock, and the tools to sculpt their own.

Yes, 154 to be exact, but the emphasis or difference in philosophy, is to develop a keen understanding of the base movements (Master Keys) and then be able to formulate "extemporaneously" unlimited variations.

The philosophy is the same. It is the application of the philosophy that differs. Same mountain, different path. Parker did not start with 154. What he learned came from the whole package. There will perhaps never be another Ed Parker, simply because no one in EPAK will have the opportunity to start with what Ed Parker had. Had a genius of his caliber been given a system with 154 techniques, perhaps when he was done chiseling, you would have been left with, say, 55 techniques, and one form.

Dogma is a useful tool. It makes it easy to categorize all your stuff in the box. But it is helpful to step back from the box and look at some of the others. You may find the same stuff, organized a little differently.

:asian:[/QUOTE]

 

[Ceicei]

It makes it easy to categorize all your stuff in the box. But it is helpful to step back from the box and look at some of the others. You may find the same stuff, organized a little differently.

Loved that point! Do you mind if I quote you if I need to make a similar point?

- Ceicei

 

[Rob Broad]

Maybe. If kenpo is a language, following EP's alphabet of motion analogy, why is it wrong that Tracy's has a large vocabulary?

There is nothing wrong with a large vocabulary, the problem begins when there are to many similar words. By having too manytechniques and variatins the students becomes bogged down, it is just like reading a very dry technical manual, some people will have little or no problem understanding it but most be will become frustrated and move on.

"True creativity lies in a firm foundation of knowledge and discipline." In other words, by exposing students to so many technques and variations, I feel that when this variable expansion occurs, there is more of a chance of actually advancing the art. By limiting the exposure to techniques and situations, is it possible that people in EPAK are creating the same "new techniques" that everyone else is creating?

True creativity comes from the ability to tailor the art to fit the individual. By following the equation formula, the student molds the system to fit them. There are only so many possible combinations of the basics but it is how those basics are strung together for each individual that makes Kenpo effective.

And, anyone familiar with the whole of the Tracy System understands that the techniques are not 600 unique, completely different techniques. They are simply a way of exercising the basic techniques in differing scenarios.

But are there really 600 techniques needed, or is osme of the information rehashed just to fill up space on belt levels.

Ed Parker sculpted a masterpiece, and left it for people to study and learn from. Al Tracy has given people the rock, and the tools to sculpt their own.

I want to say this is backwards. Ed Parker gave us the art classes and technique, and allowed us paint our own personal portrait. Al Tracy gave us a paint by numbers set. But both pictures bot come out nice.

The philosophy is the same. It is the application of the philosophy that differs. Same mountain, different path. Parker did not start with 154. What he learned came from the whole package. There will perhaps never be another Ed Parker, simply because no one in EPAK will have the opportunity to start with what Ed Parker had. Had a genius of his caliber been given a system with 154 techniques, perhaps when he was done chiseling, you would have been left with, say, 55 techniques, and one form.

That sounds alot lot like the IKCA program, 55 Techniques and 1 Form. What SGM Parker put together at times can be hard to phathom, but with categorizing and recategorizing everything seems to fall into place. Al Tracy also has a good program it is just different than what SGM Parker had done. It is too bad SGM Parker passed away before he revealed his next phase for kenpo, we can only imagine what it would have held.

 

[Rob Broad]

Has this amount of Tracy traffic warranted its own forum?

Can we continue good topics in a Tracy's forum?

Can we stop it from becoming a flame fest?

Only the people involved can mold it, it is now up to the staff to see if they want to have a Tracy's forum.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Maybe. If kenpo is a language, following EP's alphabet of motion analogy, why is it wrong that Tracy's has a large vocabulary?

Tsk tsk Dave........ why so defensive? I don't recall saying that it was wrong at all! We were discussing differences if you read carefully.

"True creativity lies in a firm foundation of knowledge and discipline." In other words, by exposing students to so many techniques and variations, I feel that when this variable expansion occurs, there is more of a chance of actually advancing the art.

Creativity for whom........ Al Tracy or the students? Developing a system that has 600 + techniques is (IMHO) overkill, which takes the student 6 times longer to finally reach the point where he/she can start concentrating on the "essence" of the techniques or system rather than constantly memorizing continual reworked techniques. Not "wrong" just a different philosophical direction which is one difference between systems.

By limiting the exposure to techniques and situations, ... is it possible that people in EPAK are creating the same "new techniques" that everyone else is creating?

A} Who said anyone was limiting exposure to techniques???....... just because the base system of EPAK has fewer techniques doesn't mean there is less exposure being taught. (Granted .... this all depends on the individual instructors methods)

B} Yes, it is quite possible that individuals could inadvertently produce similar self defense maneuvers [regardless of system or global location] ....... there are only so many ways to move.

And, anyone familiar with the whole of the Tracy System understands that the techniques are not 600 unique, completely different techniques. They are simply a way of exercising the basic techniques in differing scenarios.

Yes, many A, B, C, D, versions of the same technique with minor changes etc. (Keep in mind, many viewers are NOT familiar with one or both systems ..... thus the questions)"

Ed Parker sculpted a masterpiece, and left it for people to study and learn from. Al Tracy has given people the rock, and the tools to sculpt their own.

Well, I must totally disagree with you on that one.

The philosophy is the same.

In many instances........ yes, very close, but not in all areas. (The apple did fall in the proximity of the tree)

It is the application of the philosophy that differs.

Application is a KEY word but not only in philosophy but in mechanics as well.

Same mountain, different path.

True, same mountain and different paths, but the key issue is the exact tools or equipment that the mountaineers are carrying.

Parker did not start with 154 techniques.

True, he did evolve to those.... it was a PROCESS for sure (and much detailed refinment to that process occured in the 80's).

There will perhaps never be another Ed Parker, simply because no one in EPAK will have the opportunity to start with what Ed Parker had. Had a genius of his caliber been given a system with 154 techniques, perhaps when he was done chiseling, you would have been left with, say, 55 techniques, and one form.

Only if the goal was to pare down the numbers to the Keys. You see we already have a "Master Key System" of movements which are far less than the base 154. The 154 still has usefulness for teaching the beginner to "develop" those keys. The advanced students then elevate to "using" what they have learned and trained in a pragmatic sense.

Dogma is a useful tool. It makes it easy to categorize all your stuff in the box. But it is helpful to step back from the box and look at some of the others. You may find the same stuff, organized a little differently.

Most certainly! I always love to compare notes with others.
:asian:

 

[Trident]

I started out with Tracy Kenpo in Cleveland, OH in the late 80's & reached 3rd Brown. After spending 9 years in the Navy, I started over again in American Kenpo in Austin, TX. I made it back to 3rd Brown earlier this year. Below are a couple of differences I experienced in my training:

1. The Tracy movement was much more Chinese - big, flowing circles. EPAK uses smaller, elongated circles and rounded corners: Economy of motion.
2. Tracy focus was on the sequence of moves, but not the "how & why" to make them work. Mostly a "do it like this". I mimicked my instructor, and was fast, but was guilty of what Mr. Burks refers to as "waving my hands in the air" - lots of motion with no apparent effect. The EPAK focus has been on the proper execution of the techniques, including the "why". Being an engineer by training (read:geek) I like the in depth explanations of body mechanics and physics that go into achieving the "relaxed power" that Mr. Billings demonstrates so well. I'm physically slower than I was 16 years ago, but my motion is more efficient, and effective. I know fewer techniques, but I can make them work.
3. We had very controlled contact in my Tracy school, and never "thumped". In my EPAK school, we take the saying "..to feel is to believe" seriously.

The above observations represent my personal experience, and may be more an indication of the quality of my EPAK instruction than anything else, but they are some of the differences I have noted.


Mike

 

[bdparsons]

Only if the goal was to pare down the numbers to the Keys. You see we already have a "Master Key System" of movements which are far less than the base 154. The 154 still has usefulness for teaching the beginner to "develop" those keys. The advanced students then elevate to "using" what they have learned and trained in a pragmatic sense.

Dennis,

Interesting thoughts. Let's take Dave's not-so-subtle reference to the IKCA and expand a bit.

I have been told by at least four unrelated sources (hearsay yes, but unrelated sources lend to it being true) that Huk Planas commonly makes the assertion in his seminars that 2/3 of the techniques in the American Kenpo sysytem violate Kenpo principles and concepts. He then states it's up to the Kenpo practitioners themselves to find out which ones do.

Above you make reference to the "Master Key System" being "far less" than the 154.

What I think I'm hearing when I put the two observations together is that there is a solid Kenpo core that has been expanded on in both EPAK and Tracy's. Expansion seems to have occured in both sysytems, and I'm not sure it was entirely beneficial in either case.

Have we lost the forest for the trees? Should having a solid Kenpo core with fewer techniques and all principles and concepts in place actually accelerate the learning process and bring the tailoring and spontaneous phases of Kenpo to fruition quicker?

Yes, I am an IKCA practitioner, but I'm not looking for blind support or total disregard of what the IKCA sysytem is. I'm just trying to get serious thoughts about comparing the three.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[Goldendragon7]

I have been told by at least four unrelated sources (hearsay yes, but unrelated sources lend to it being true) that Huk Planas commonly makes the assertion in his seminars that 2/3 of the techniques in the American Kenpo system violate Kenpo principles and concepts.

Well, I can not speak for Huk nor can I answer why he says what he says. What I can say is only on a case by case basis looking directly at the specific technique and violation he would speak of. All techniques are not taught the same by all Kenpoists (due to many reasons) so in some cases... I'm sure I would agree with him, it would also depend on what he prescribes to as violations. While he is quite knowledgeable and skilled (and I enjoy probing him for his point of view), he is not the last word on all the material. Even his old instructors disagreed with some of what he has said (Steve LaBounty, Tom Kelly, and yes even SGM Ed Parker {btw this is 1st hand info - from me asking them personally on various statements over the years}) publicly.

He then states it's up to the Kenpo practitioners themselves to find out which ones do.

That IMHO could be his personal choice of teaching methodology (which may work well for him) but this path may not work for everyone.

Above you make reference to the "Master Key System" being "far less" than the 154.

Yes, it really is no secret.

What I think I'm hearing when I put the two observations together is that there is a solid Kenpo core that has been expanded on/in both EPAK and Tracy's.

You hear correctly. Look .... there are only so many ways to intercept actions..... these are revealed by studying the mechanics of the system.

Expansion seems to have occured in both sysytems, and I'm not sure it was entirely beneficial in either case.

Yes, as SGM Parker used to say...... "there are several ways to reach a goal.... not just one way". So an integral part of his method of teaching was to illustrate different possibilities to get the same job accomplished while addressing several different areas of training...... {environmental issues, range, positions, maneuvers possible [opponent and ones self], targets, natural weapons etc.} this then led to the creation of different techniques that were recorded and eventually organized into curriculums.

Have we lost the forest for the trees?

No, I don't think so, but then again, it all depends on the teaching methodology of the instructor or organization's philosophy in how the system is passed on to students. The How's & why's of the material and their interrelations must be taught at some point to understand the complete system.

Should having a solid Kenpo core with fewer techniques and all principles and concepts in place actually accelerate the learning process and bring the tailoring and spontaneous phases of Kenpo to fruition quicker?

For the beginner.......NO they still need much repetition and drilling for motor skills and physical development. The different combinations help to maintain interest yet still "pound in" the necessary motions. "Same present - packaged differently".

For the advanced student yes, this will expand the mental development it reveals what the student has been thru and many "Ahhhhhhhh that's why we did that", and "little mental light bulbs" will go of as an increased level of understanding sinks in. At this point the "Family groupings" help to show the similarities that occur as well as illustrate minor adjustments/differences that can be made which leads to extemporaneous execution of the already well drilled basics of the system.

Yes, I am an IKCA practitioner, but I'm not looking for blind support or total disregard of what the IKCA system is. I'm just trying to get serious thoughts about comparing the three.
Respects,Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

No problem. Each organization has a different approach that they feel is what is best for them and their group. Ultimately, it is up to the student to evaluate the content of the training compared to other methods that are available to establish whether you are where you want to be or not. Unfortunately this can only occur after on has a good grasp on the material in the first place. Brand spanking new students need a point of reference before they can make a good choice. Students that have studied any system or a while are in a much better position to make a more educated or logical choice.

:asian: {all views... in my humble opinion of course}

 

[KenpoDave]

Loved that point! Do you mind if I quote you if I need to make a similar point?

Sure!