I have noticed on more than one .......

[Goldendragon7]

occasion... that different studios do not put much emphasis on kicking...... foot positions etc. Is this because Kenpo is known for it's "Awesome Hand Combinations" or are we just lazy?
:confused:

[Seig]

Mr. C, I cannot speak for the majority of schools, but I know my people work a LOT on foot work and kicking. I tell them I don't care how well they can punch, if the foot work is not right, the punch is worthless. Not learning to kick and kick properly is like a carpenter only having one saw or one hammer. You have to have all of your tools. You can always have favorites or one use use more than others, but you must have and know how to use all of them.:asian:

[tonbo]

Our school has a pretty balanced curriculum when it comes to kicking and striking, I think. We are drilled in both pretty well, and a good emphasis is put on chambering the kicks and keeping balance. Stances both before and after kicks are quite important topics, as well.

The thing I like is that we tend to avoid a lot of the flashier kicks and settle in to what works (not a lot of aerials in our school!!). Good for me, since I ain't all that flexible.....

Peace--

[Klondike93]

I've noticed the school I'm going to doesn't emphasize kicking at all except in the self-defense techniques.

Me I have a TKD background so I'm in to all the kicks. Isn't a chicken kick considered a "jump" kick since both feet leave the ground for a split second?

I've also noticed in tournaments most fighters aren't worried about getting kicked in the face by a kenpoist. The groin however is easy pickens for them.

Does your school place equal emphasis on kicking GD? To all ranges or just below the waist?


:asian:

[jfarnsworth]

Well in our school we put the emphasis on the basic kicks off of the basics list. Once again we put it in application. Most of the people in our school (adults) are on the bigger side and don't like to do kicks all that well. I say the more the merryier and again that's just me. My opinion about the front,rear chicken kick I suppose technically speaking that is a jump kick but I personally would only use it from behind the attacker. Leaping crane actually would be the position I'd use it in.
Jason Farnsworth

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Klondike93
Does your school place equal emphasis on kicking GD? To all ranges or just below the waist?


He saw a couple of my brown belts doing the kicking set. Let him answer that one.....

:asian:

[jfarnsworth]

Those guys were just as good as any TKD student I've ever trained with. Just change the gi and you wouldn't notice a difference between the students. Mr. Conatser broke down kicking set I like I've never seen before. Kicking set to me just became more valueable as well as the other sets now that I have some ammo to understand how to take them apart properly.
Salute,
Jason Farnsworth

[Klondike93]

Originally posted by jfarnsworth

Those guys were just as good as any TKD student I've ever trained with. Just change the gi and you wouldn't notice a difference between the students. Mr. Conatser broke down kicking set I like I've never seen before. Kicking set to me just became more valueable as well as the other sets now that I have some ammo to understand how to take them apart properly.
Salute,
Jason Farnsworth

Can you explain in what way he broke it down? What did he do?


:asian:

[JD_Nelson]

in my school we were beginning to kick quite a bit more up to the point of this particular student injuring his knee playing VOLLEYBALL!!! I felt my kicking ability was developing nicely up to this point. I have not been able to work the kicking sets the way i think they should. I recently tested for yellow and was required to perform a variety of kicks. This I felt was the weakest part of my test.

:shrug: :shrug:

~~~Salute~~~

JD

[C.E.Jackson]

I've elected not to teach the "Kicking Set" per A/K standards. I do however run several kicking drills in class and require several kicks in each rank. I stress low kicks for self defense and a variety of high and mid kicks for competition. My students seem to do fairly well in competition so I guess I'm doing something right.:shrug:

[Klondike93]

What kind of kicking drills do you do?

I think kicking set is kind of fun. Do it in a vertical line, horizontal line or a box. Try it slow, fast, do all jump kicks. Hmmm, all these ideas just sitting here typing this. :)


:asian:

[donald]

I think the lack of kenpo kicking skills falls to the instructors level of expertise. My former instructor claimed dan ranking in T.K.D.. Therefore I believe my instructor like others from the school benefitted, and adopted those kicks. Other kenpo studios I've visited were sorely lacking in any type of effective kicking prowess. If I can venture a guess. I would say thats why Mr.Kelly's kick set was included into the EPAK material. To give kenpoist in general an outlet to practice, and perfect our kicking skills?

Salute :asian:

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by C.E.Jackson
I've elected not to teach the "Kicking Set" per A/K standards.

Just curious.....

:asian:

[Kalicombat]

Mr. Jackson,
Do you teach the entire EPAK curriculum to your students except for kicking sets, or have you eliminated other parts of the curriculum? I too am just curious. Do you not think that the kicking sets are an integral part to the curriculum seeing as how the systems founder felt they were important enough to include?

Gary Catherman

[Rob_Broad]

I believe kicking needs to be explored as much the blocks and punchs. Kicking should remind us that distance is our friend since it the longest range weapon the body has.

[Goldendragon7]

as just one catagory of many in the "Basics", we must strive to develop fully all our skills. Range it does have from very close (heel stomp) to long range (front kick).

:asian:

[C.E.Jackson]

As I understand it Mr. Parker did NOT personally develop most* of the "sets" as they are now taught.

These were added to the system as part of the 24 technique system that was developed by some of Mr. Parkers senior Black Belts for "commercial" reasons.

I teach ALL of the "Original" forms and Sets in Mr. Parker's "32" system as well as ALL the new S.D. Techniques, including some that were dropped from the system as the 24 system was developed.

For more information on my requirements for Black Belt see my Site at:
http://americankenpo2000.tripod.com/akkcmembers/
(*Mr. Parker personally developed Block Set and Finger Set)



Originally posted by Kalicombat

Mr. Jackson,
Do you teach the entire EPAK curriculum to your students except for kicking sets, or have you eliminated other parts of the curriculum? I too am just curious. Do you not think that the kicking sets are an integral part to the curriculum seeing as how the systems founder felt they were important enough to include?

Gary Catherman

[brianhunter]

well training under the guy who developed kicking set I dont think we got out of it too easy..........and hes also big on stances and using your horse....they help build power you can tell when a school doesnt do much training out of the horse or much stance work they lack power

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by C.E.Jackson
As I understand it Mr. Parker did NOT personally develop most* of the "sets" as they are now taught.

I want to know who is spreading rumors.........

:asian:

[C.E.Jackson]

Look here for more info Ed Parker's "original 32 technique" system.
http://www.familymartialartscenter.com/original/Original.htm


Originally posted by Goldendragon7



I want to know who is spreading rumors.........

:asian:

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by C.E.Jackson
Look here for more info Ed Parker's "original 32 technique" system.
http://www.familymartialartscenter.com/original/Original.htm

Well........... ok, The article stated "Mr. Parker's students compiled various sets such
as the Striking Set, Stance Set, and Kicking Set".

Yes, that is true.... Tom Kelly (one of Mr. Parker's students) devised the Kicking Set #1, Chuck Sullivan (one of Mr. Parker's students) developed the Staff set, Fact is, along the way through the evolution of Ed Parker's American Kenpo, he had several students that contributed to the development of the "system", which includes the Forms, and Self Defense Techniques. If you think that Ed Parker developed all the 32 Technique Curriculum solo..... you are unfortunately mistaken. Mr. Parker invited many minds to aid and give opinions as well as his great initial instruction.

The article also stated; "Since these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content."

I have said this before and I will state it once again..... For anyone to believe that Ed Parker did not know the content of the material he personally inserted into his system, never studied with the man personally otherwise you would know that if he didn't find value in the drills in question....... they would not have been added to "HIS" system, which he was extremely proud of.

The genius of Ed Parker was the fact that he sought several opinions and validations from his own students. In addition, he felt strongly enough in their own thinking and reasoning ability to use LOGIC and "bring back" to him their thoughts and ideas (thus the reason for the requiring of a written and form thesis) to evaluate and "master mind" with several not just one.

The result is the System we have today. It certainly had Ed Parker written all over it but he allowed us to continue to evolve it with him. He was wise enough to allow Tom Kelly, Huk Planas, Skip Hancock, Paul Mills, Bryan Hawkins, Roger Meadows, Steve LaBounty, Frank Trejo, Mike Pick (which I believe instructed Len Broussard for a period of time while in Mississippi I believe) and a host of others that I have left off but not forgotten, to play leading rolls during this process.

:asian:

[C.E.Jackson]

As always I seek others perspectives and knowledge about Ed Parkers American Kenpo System as this is the system I have chosen to pass on to my students. I am aware there differing opinions as to the value of the various "systems" of Mr. Parker's American Kenpo now in play.

Some would say that the "16" system is not Mr. Parker's System,

Some would say the "32" system in not Mr. Parkers's system,

Some would say the "24" system is outdated.

I teach all 250 (plus 3 that were dropped) Self Defense Techniques knowing not all of these were personnally developed by Mr. Parker.

I include Forms 1-6 and selected "Sets"

All the Forms (1-6) and Techniques (256) are required for Black Belt First Degree at my school.

When my students venture beyond my instruction they will of course need to conform to thier new Instructors's requirements. My First Degree Black Belt may find themselves testing for 5th Degree Black under some of the "systems" in play today under another Instructor's System.
When they do so they will certainly need to know the additional material required. (additional sets)

As I understand it the "Sets" were developed as a teaching aid rather than for any catagory needs. I use all the Sets than aid me in passing on Mr. Parker's System.

I beleve that the "essence" of Mr. Parker's System rests within the Forms and Techniques.

It is on these I focus my attention.

I respect and welcome other's opinions and perspectives.




Originally posted by Goldendragon7



Well........... ok, The article stated "Mr. Parker's students compiled various sets such
as the Striking Set, Stance Set, and Kicking Set".

Yes, that is true.... Tom Kelly (one of Mr. Parker's students) devised the Kicking Set #1, Chuck Sullivan (one of Mr. Parker's students) developed the Staff set, Fact is, along the way through the evolution of Ed Parker's American Kenpo, he had several students that contributed to the development of the "system", which includes the Forms, and Self Defense Techniques. If you think that Ed Parker developed all the 32 Technique Curriculum solo..... you are unfortunately mistaken. Mr. Parker invited many minds to aid and give opinions as well as his great initial instruction.

The article also stated; "Since these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content."

I have said this before and I will state it once again..... For anyone to believe that Ed Parker did not know the content of the material he personally inserted into his system, never studied with the man personally otherwise you would know that if he didn't find value in the drills in question....... they would not have been added to "HIS" system, which he was extremely proud of.

The genius of Ed Parker was the fact that he sought several opinions and validations from his own students. In addition, he felt strongly enough in their own thinking and reasoning ability to use LOGIC and "bring back" to him their thoughts and ideas (thus the reason for the requiring of a written and form thesis) to evaluate and "master mind" with several not just one.

The result is the System we have today. It certainly had Ed Parker written all over it but he allowed us to continue to evolve it with him. He was wise enough to allow Tom Kelly, Huk Planas, Skip Hancock, Paul Mills, Bryan Hawkins, Roger Meadows, Steve LaBounty, Frank Trejo, Mike Pick (which I believe instructed Len Broussard for a period of time while in Mississippi I believe) and a host of others that I have left off but not forgotten, to play leading rolls during this process.

:asian:

[Goldendragon7]

Mr. Parker had a saying...... never throw out anything......... file it. It will fall under one of 3 categories..... either Useful, Unuseful or useless....... lol.

I know and understand that the history of our awesome art is clouded with misunderstandings & misinterpretations due to the unique evolution of how we are where we are. Many have taken verbatim text or verbiage and not completely understood what Ed Parker was saying. He would even get frustrated because he felt at times he was not getting through to some...... but forged on anyway. Thank God!

I believe everything has value...... some of course much more than others........ some is to be Mastered.... some to be skilled with and still other material just to have some knowledge of is enough.

I like you have also heard the statements on the 32, 24 and 16 technique based curriculums. Well the fact of the matter is....... they ALL are good...... they are all the same stuff just divvied up differently. As Mr. Parker saw fit due to "field experiments" with various studios all over the country and world..... he would get feedback and if the times required adjustment of the curriculums..... he did what was in his opinion necessary..... One thing he didn't change was the basics and standards of HIS art. The 154/5 base of Techniques ~ Forms & Sets, are the standard of 90 % of Kenpo today. However, what you want to teach is up to you since he no longer is here to offer his opinion.

While he was alive I can tell you that he had students doing the 32 system, the 24 System, and was hearing great reviews on the 16 technique system that was new and he liked, and had no problem with any them.... rather he focused on the "execution and betterment of the basics and principles of the material" involved which is the same with all of the curriculums.
:asian: