Originally posted by Pakhet
Now now...he didn't corrupt us...YOU did :rofl:

Technicality Pakhet.
Wait until he tells you about grappling and kenpo and mirrors.
:eek:

I'm going to duck out of the room now. I'll come back in a few months when it might be safe.
:rofl:

Originally posted by cdhall
Technicality Pakhet.
Wait until he tells you about grappling and kenpo and mirrors.
:eek:



what *about* grappling and kenpo and mirrors???


or do I really not want to know?

Originally posted by Pakhet
what *about* grappling and kenpo and mirrors???


or do I really not want to know?

You probably don't want to know.
:eek:
I didn't understand the grappling part very well when he tried to explain it to me.

I'm going to try to shut up before I get into trouble, but I'm sure I'll be back later and live to regret it.
:(

Originally posted by cdhall
I didn't understand the grappling part very well when he tried to explain it to me.

I found some difficulty trying to grapple a grappler. As I've stated before hand positioning and body positioning is an absolute must or it means the difference of winning or losing (at least that's my view).

This is something that I have been thinking about and have not come to a satisfactory conclusion. In Kenpo, we do a lot of double factoring. If you have someone who is impaired on one side, is there some way to compensate for that? What would the ramifications be?

Originally posted by Seig
This is something that I have been thinking about and have not come to a satisfactory conclusion. In Kenpo, we do a lot of double factoring. If you have someone who is impaired on one side, is there some way to compensate for that? What would the ramifications be?


As an example.............I have a student that only has the use of only one arm (left). It was a situation from birth. There is no way to strengthen the "weak" or in his, case the "right" arm, which is virtually useless.

So .......... what do you do?..... well ...... what can you do.... give him another arm......NO...... so

You work the "good" arm overtime. LOL........ since the one arm is unable to operate or function ...... you then must use Mr. Parker's "tailoring" tool :) To show you the compensations would be the only way to explain each technique and we can't do that here .... it would take volumes. So you'll have to ask me when you see me........ LOL

:asian:

Originally posted by Seig
This is something that I have been thinking about and have not come to a satisfactory conclusion. In Kenpo, we do a lot of double factoring. If you have someone who is impaired on one side, is there some way to compensate for that? What would the ramifications be?

I don't want to pretend to have a better answer than Mr. C but perhaps my observation will lead to another question or answer.

If a Double-Factor is essentially a double-block like when you change angles in Short 1, then 50% of the reason to do it is for margin of error.

If you can not Double-Factor then you can still execute the primary block, parry or maneuver right?

So all that happens when you can not Double-Factor is you lose some margin of error.

As Mr. Liles demonstrated to us at camp once, Bruce Lee's attitude toward blocking a punch was to "hit first" because blocks are a waste of time. This is why most of our blocks are strikes anyway right?

So if someone can not Double-factor then they focus more on being quicker, angling, and hitting more precisely, correct?

I don't see this as anything to compensate "for." I see having only one arm as a situation that is sort of already accounted for in a Double-Factor which is really just insurance in the first place.

I hope that makes sense.

The double factor doesn't necessarily always mean to double block. It can be many different things at the same time. Obviously this is Mr. C's thread and he probably has a different/better answer than I but what I've seen and been taught there are others relating to the double factor.:asian:

Sorry CD, for not responding sooner, but was side tracked with the care of my mother and all that was going on at home for the past 2 months....... back on track now.........

Originally posted by cdhall
If a Double-Factor is essentially a double-block like when you change angles in Short 1, then 50% of the reason to do it is for margin of error.


It is NOT essentially a double block. It can be for many things.... in short one for example.... you have just completed the 1st block, as you step back for the next movement........ a couple of uses are; to cover or protect your centerline, as well as to position for opposing forces (in this case the hands do not cross). I don't understand what you are referring as "margin for error" in this case.

Originally posted by cdhall
If you can not Double-Factor then you can still execute the primary block, parry or maneuver right?


Yes

Originally posted by cdhall
So all that happens when you can not Double-Factor is you lose some margin of error.


NO

Originally posted by cdhall
As Mr. Liles demonstrated to us at camp once, Bruce Lee's attitude toward blocking a punch was to "hit first" because blocks are a waste of time. This is why most of our blocks are strikes anyway right?


Nope, only one view point or reason.

Originally posted by cdhall
So if someone can not Double-factor then they focus more on being quicker, angling, and hitting more precisely, correct?


Nope again, you should do all of those anyway!

Originally posted by cdhall
I don't see this as anything to compensate "for." I see having only one arm as a situation that is sort of already accounted for in a Double-Factor which is really just insurance in the first place.


If you say so.

Originally posted by cdhall
I hope this makes sense.


Not to me, but then again ...... I'm not your instructor. :)

Hang in there. The system is broader than you realize.

:asian:

Mr. C,
If this is still open as a Q and A, I had a couple of questions, I know youve explained why and when Tiger Crane came and went to me before, What about Book Set? When was it included in the curriculum and why? Why was it later removed? What did it teach?
Where does 2 man set have its origins? how did it manage to stay in most curriculums? What are some of the principles and things to be learned from it?

Brian Hunter

Brian, of course it is still an open Q & A for me. Ask away!!:asian:

Originally posted by brianhunter
You've explained why and when Tiger Crane came and went to me before, What about Book Set?
Brian Hunter

Same reason. It was not an Ed Parker set to begin with. At that time period there was an apparent need for more forms, sets, or training drills..... so "viola" a couple of interesting "drills" were utilized temporarily until more of "our own" unique forms took place.

Originally posted by brianhunter
When was it included in the curriculum and why? Why was it later removed? What did it teach?
Brian Hunter

Early 60's ~ added as an additional drill until more "Ed Parker sets or Forms were finalized" It was removed when it no longer was needed as Ed Parker added "his own" forms (early 70's), however, it can still be utilized as an option for fun. Like all forms it taught or had several uses. Coordination, stances, power, body alignment, discipline, footwork, etc. etc..

Originally posted by brianhunter
Where does 2 man set have its origins? how did it manage to stay in most curriculums? What are some of the principles and things to be learned from it?
Brian Hunter

Early 60's. It is a formal pre-arranged exercise much like a technique line but choreographed for 2 people. Strike ~ Block.... Strike ~ Block through out the set. It stayed because it was an Ed Parker set.

It teaches..........
1. How to increase your visualization processes in your previous
forms.
2. It builds an esprit de corps between two practitioners.
3. Synchronization of movement and timing between two
individuals.
4. Capitalizes on body maneuvers and positions.
5. Whatever angle your opponent chooses as a defense you
may choose as an offense, and vice-versa.
6. The flow from defensive moves to offensive moves or vice-
versa.
7. The application of rotational momentum combined with
Marriage of Gravity while defending.
8. The advantageous use of angle changes to ride the force of
your opponent's attacks.
9. Upper and Lower Case positional checks.
10. Use of specialized weapons.
11. Control Manipulation to enhance the effects of opposing
forces.
12. Sliding checks combined with offensive moves.
13. Specialized blocks that are normally thought of as strikes.
14. Residual action combining the flow from a block into a strike.
15. Reinforces the importance of gauging distance and how it will
effect the timing and choice of movements.
16. The prolonged application of continuous movement.
17. Reinforces the importance of being able to defend and/or
attack from the inside, outside, above, or below your
opponent's weapons.
18. Stresses the value of understanding the Second Point of
View.
19. The importance of continual transition, and the exercising of
its use.
20. others.........

:asian:

Thank you, Mr. C. I called twice. I'm sure you got the messages. I hope all is better now that you are back.

My question then is "What is a Double Factor" and "What/where are 1-2 examples of it?"

Thank you.
:asian:

This is still my favorite thread. Where else can I get so much knowledge for the cost. I value it more than you think.

-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com (http://kenpo-texas.com)

Brian Hunter sig - 2 fish swim into a concrete wall, the first fish turns to the other and says "Dam!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:confused:

Klondike

Originally posted by Michael Billings
This is still my favorite thread. Where else can I get so much knowledge for the cost. I value it more than you think.-Michael


LOL, Thanks. I am considering a pay per ask format.....:rofl:

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
LOL, Thanks. I am considering a pay per ask format.....:rofl:

:asian:

Set up a paypal account!! I know a few who would be glad to donate! Ive learned a lot from you!

Originally posted by cdhall
My question is "What is a Double Factor"?


It entails utilizing duel movements to defend yourself. These moves can incorporate any combinations of blocks, parries, and checks. It ALSO refers to sophisticated moves that are dually defensive and offensive and "reverse motion" is an integral part.

Originally posted by cdhall
"What/where are 1-2 examples of it?"


As discussed before..... in short form 1, for example.... you have just completed the 1st block, as you step back for the next movement........ a couple of uses are; to cover or protect your centerline, as well as to position for opposing forces (in this case the hands do not cross). However, during the next move, you step back with your right foot as you cover with the right hand (positional check), when you pivot (clockwise) and deliver a left inward block the right hand drops down to cover the groin as it returns on its path back to the cocked position at your side. During this same execution an additional double factor is that it is in sync with the inward block which creates a stronger block through the gain of opposing forces.

:asian:

Originally posted by brianhunter
Set up a paypal account!! I know a few who would be glad to donate! Ive learned a lot from you!


I beat you to it. LOL It is already set up:D

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I beat you to it. LOL It is already set up:D

:asian:

Great, another WWE Vince McMahon!;)

Originally posted by RCastillo
Great, another WWE Vince McMahon!;)

Well Vince isn't the only one who can build a multi-billion dollar establishment.

Originally posted by RCastillo
Great, another WWE Vince McMahon!;)


We could only wish!

:D

Vince McDragon - paypal, where??

-Michael

I've heard about a set called Tiger breathing as being similar to what we call in spanish "Tigre en tensión".
What does it look like?
Where does it come from?
I have a version for the origin of the spanish form, but I have never heard before of Tiger breathing .

Thanks

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
I've heard about a set called Tiger breathing as being similar to what we call in spanish "Tigre en tensión".
What does it look like? Where does it come from? I have a version for the origin of the spanish form, but I have never heard before of Tiger breathing . Thanks


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Nothing like that in Ed Parker's American Kenpo!

:asian:

Feeling relieved for not being the only one not having heard of it :)
The spanish form was made by Raúl Gutiérrez for his Kenpo Fushi, by the latest account :D

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Feeling relieved for not being the only one not having heard of it :) The spanish form was made by Raúl Gutiérrez for his Kenpo Fushi, by the latest account :D


I would be interested in looking at what he did.

:)

You can see the beginning at http://www.kenporosales.com/fuenteretiro.htm

If you're very interested in the description, I'll write it down, but I'll need some time...

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
If you're interested in the description, I'll write it down, but I'll need some time...

That would be great. Just email me when you have it finished.

:D

Mr. C,

On captured leaves I've noticed that, like every other technique, there are several variations that exist in the way this technique is done by various instructors. The 2 variations that seem to be most prominent are the one using a chop to release the finger lock that then orbits around into the first elbow strike, the other is the one that regrabs the attackers fingers after manipulating their grabbing arms position.

Can you give me some background on those 2 variations as they relate to SGM Parker? Which did he prefer, which did he come up with first, was there a switch that made people do one vs the other?

Thanks in advance, jb

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Mr. C, On captured leaves I've noticed that, like every other technique, there are several variations that exist in the way this technique is done by various instructors. The 2 variations that seem to be most prominent are the one using a chop to release the finger lock that then orbits around into the first elbow strike, the other is the one that re-grabs the attackers fingers after manipulating their grabbing arms position.

Can you give me some background on those 2 variations as they relate to SGM Parker? Which did he prefer, which did he come up with first, was there a switch that made people do one vs. the other?
Thanks in advance, jb


I don't know of any other variations than the one he showed me (which is below). My best guess is that this IS one of the most misinterpreted self defense techniques (thus several versions out there) that we have for a number of reasons. In the beginning I didn't like the darn thing until he showed me how the mechanics worked and why, now, it is one of my favorites.


CAPTURED LEAVES (Right flank finger lock)

1. With the fingers of your right hand twisted by your opponent's left hand from your right flank, raise your right hand high (toward 1:30) to relieve the pressure (have your left hand positionally check your opponent's right hand and arm in the process), as you move your right foot slightly to your right (toward 1:30).

2. While in place, pivot counterclockwise into a horse stance (facing between 8 and 9 o'clock) and deliver a left back elbow strike (from the last checking position) to the back of your opponent's left kidney. (Your opponent is on the tips of his toes, and his body is turning clockwise to his right.)

3. Immediately pivot clockwise into a right neutral bow stance, and deliver a right back elbow strike to the front of your opponent's left ribcage as your left hand now grabs and controls your opponent's left arm at the wrist. (Your opponent should bend forward at the waist.)

4. Right front crossover and cover between 8 and 9 o'clock.

Is this the way you do it?

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Is this the way you do it?

:asian:
Yep:D

Originally posted by Seig
Yep:D

What's that huge kissing sound?.......oh, nevermind...:rofl:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Is this the way you do it?

Yep same here. That's way I was shown how it's done by my current instructor, but I was first shown the way JB described it.

:asian:

Klondike (aka Chuck)

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I don't know of any other variations than the one he showed me (which is below). My best guess is that this IS one of the most misinterpreted self defense techniques (thus several versions out there) that we have for a number of reasons. In the beginning I didn't like the darn thing until he showed me how the mechanics worked and why, now, it is one of my favorites.


CAPTURED LEAVES (Right flank finger lock)

1. With the fingers of your right hand twisted by your opponent's left hand from your right flank, raise your right hand high (toward 1:30) to relieve the pressure (have your left hand positionally check your opponent's right hand and arm in the process), as you move your right foot slightly to your right (toward 1:30).

2. While in place, pivot counterclockwise into a horse stance (facing between 8 and 9 o'clock) and deliver a left back elbow strike (from the last checking position) to the back of your opponent's left kidney. (Your opponent is on the tips of his toes, and his body is turning clockwise to his right.)

3. Immediately pivot clockwise into a right neutral bow stance, and deliver a right back elbow strike to the front of your opponent's left ribcage as your left hand now grabs and controls your opponent's left arm at the wrist. (Your opponent should bend forward at the waist.)

4. Right front crossover and cover between 8 and 9 o'clock.

Is this the way you do it?

:asian:

I've seen and done it both ways.... at 1) you don't mention anything about grabbing the attacker's fingers after you have "relieve the pressure". Is this a given and therefore unwritten?

"My best guess is that this IS one of the most misinterpreted self defense techniques "

Why would you say that? Has this been your experience in general? What other techniques would you classify like this?

jb:asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo
You don't mention anything about grabbing the attacker's fingers after you have "relieve the pressure". Is this a given and therefore unwritten?
jb:asian:

No, I don't counter grab I finish with the 2 elbow strikes and get the hell out of Dodge.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
"My best guess is that this IS one of the most misinterpreted self defense techniques " Why would you say that? Has this been your experience in general?
jb:asian:

I say that because it is one of the many techniques that I have found many to have particular trouble with. Yes, it has been my experience.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
What other techniques would you classify like this?
jb:asian:

Oh, there are several.......... Dance of Death, Gift of Destiny, Broken Ram, Blinding Sacrifice, Dominating Circles ... just to name a few.

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
No, I don't counter grab I finish with the 2 elbow strikes and get the hell out of Dodge.

2. While in place, pivot counterclockwise into a horse stance (facing between 8 and 9 o'clock) and deliver a left back elbow strike (from the last checking position) to the back of your opponent's left kidney. (Your opponent is on the tips of his toes, and his body is turning clockwise to his right.)

:asian:

Without grabbing their fingers how do you ensure that they will "be on their toes", couldn't they just let your fingers go once you've stepped to 1:30 or does your control manipulation of their arm preclude them from releasing your fingers and getting out of the way of your elbow? Also before the second elbow strike you grab with the left hand. If you don't maintain any control through grabbing with your fingers how do you maintain adhesion, once again is this through the manipulation and the speed at which the technique is executed?

Respectfully, jb :asian:

LOL, first off this is a public forum, not a private lesson. If you want this much detailed info you should ask your instructor first and then arrange a private with me. I love to answer questions until it gets to the point of detailed "how to". If I were to continue............ you may as well start at the beginning and ask about the 1st technique and continue through the entire system so that I share with everyone my detailed explinations.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Without grabbing their fingers how do you ensure that they will "be on their toes". Respectfully, jb :asian:


These techniques are only ideas..... or drills..... you NEVER insure anything. In the "ideal phase" we do assume that the technique works as taught and the opponent reacts as we intend. During the "what if phase" we examine many, many different possibilities.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Couldn't they just let your fingers go once you've stepped to 1:30
Respectfully, jb :asian:


Yes they could, that IS a possibility.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Does your control manipulation of their arm preclude them from releasing your fingers and getting out of the way of your elbow?
Respectfully, jb :asian:


It can as well.

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Also before the second elbow strike you grab with the left hand. If you don't maintain any control through grabbing with your fingers how do you maintain adhesion, once again is this through the manipulation and the speed at which the technique is executed? Respectfully, jb :asian:


Yes, you answered your own question! :D

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
LOL, first off this is a public forum, not a private lesson. If you want this much detailed info you should ask your instructor first and then arrange a private with me. I love to answer questions until it gets to the point of detailed "how to". If I were to continue............ you may as well start at the beginning and ask about the 1st technique and continue through the entire system so that I share with everyone my detailed explinations.
:asian:

ouch....there's a way to scare off future questions...:D





just kidding, no problem, all is good and the weekend is here.

jb:cool:

Originally posted by jbkenpo
What's that huge kissing sound?.......oh, nevermind...:rofl:
Yer just jealous 'cause he taught it to me.:2xbird::rofl:

Originally posted by Seig
Yer just jealous 'cause he taught it to me.:2xbird::rofl:

Now, now....... dont be mean!

:mad:

Originally posted by Seig
Yer just jealous 'cause he taught it to me.:2xbird::rofl:

uh, yeah that's it.....I'm jealous of you...:)


and in the interest of maturity, good taste and respect for Mr. C I'll leave it at that.

j "mouse hands" b :asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo
uh, hee hee.... He doesn't realize how long I've known Gd7 and all the other secrets I've got from him......... j "mouse hands" b :asian:

hee hee...... well, don't tell him.:rofl:

Originally posted by Ben22
I have always been curious about the extensions.
I like to document what principles i learn and where they occur in the curriculum. Id like to know the names of the new principles found in the extensions?

I'm not looking for explanations of the new principles, just there labels. (ex. economy of motion, point of origin, black dot focus)


In the back of the Infinite Insights you will find a glossary filled with terms that are used throughout the system. Also the Encyclopedia of Kenpo will be extremely useful in that quest.

If you are working on the extensions you are certainly at a level of training that you can list the principles of each move of your self-defense techniques. Do not omit this work. In accounting for the principles of each of these extensions you may: find their association to previous movements and sequences, discover new principles, and lay a better foundation for new material.

My students that take private or group lessons or individuals that attend any of my Seminars are a source of information, as well as my advanced Kenpo manuals which have much of the material that you seek, however I reserve that for my IKKO members.

A sample of what I am refering to......

Take "CLUTCHING FEATHERS" for instance....

1. FIRST MOVE

1. Point of Origin
2. Depth of Action
........a. Create Distance
3. Body Rotation
........a. Width change
b. Clockwise/counter clockwise
4. Minimize Target
5. Pinning Check
........a. Anchor Elbow
6. Angle of Disturbance
7. Angle of Cancellation
8. Stabilize Your Base
........a. Keep knees flexible
........b. Settle
..............a. Height
9. Body Alignment
10. Back-Up Mass
11. Angle of Execution
12. Counter Manipulation
13. Contouring
........a. Fitting
........b. Pin Point Effect
14. Angle of Incidence
15. Path of action
16. Breathing
17. Others

2. SECOND MOVE

1. Angle of Delivery
2. Depth of Action
........a. Decrease Distance
3. Body Momentum
........a. Rotational
b. Vertical/Diagonal
........c. Forward
4. Maximize Width of Action
5. Angle of Execution
........a. Block - UP THE CIRCLE
........b. Heel Palm
6. Body Alignment
7. Back-Up Mass
8. With
9. Borrowed Force
10. Bracing Angle
........a. Forward Bow
11. Defensive - Offense
a. Lock Out

12. etc. etc.

I think you get the idea.

:asian:

Thank you Mr. C

Im going to have to get the Encyclopedia, i think it would help me alot. Does the encyclopedia list where the principles are first introduced.

That way i have a way to gage what is from where and how they relate to each other in terms of what is more advanced material.

Thanks again
:asian:

Originally posted by Ben22
Does the encyclopedia list where the principles are first introduced.

That way I have a way to gage what is from where and how they relate to each other in terms of what is more advanced material.


The Encyclopedia will be of great help. No it does not tell exactly where each principle occurs in any given technique, you will have to research and study that on your own. :)

As far as gauging what is from where - and what is considered advanced material goes, the principles occur in all the techniques. Some contain different or specific ones than others and yet some are present in ALL techniques (i.e., point of origin), but as your knowledge grows, you will understand the difference between embryonic material that is taught in the lower ranks and the sophisticated material that develops as you progress thru the ranks.

Often times it is your maturity and understanding in the art that is the difference as your knowledge and skills increase not a particular technique, form, set or belt level that exposes such material.

:asian:

I see what you are saying Mr. C

Thanks for the help, That last sentence in your last post helps to put things into perspective.
Your guidance on this matter is valued and appriciated.

In light of all this, would i be correct to say that the extensions are a more mature expression of what has already been learned, desiqned to help a kenpoists express motion and the principles in a more individualized manner, which is free of the initial structured training method. I do notice some more elaborate foot work, methods of closing the distance, and a few other goodies?

Damn i hope that made sense, im reading it now and im not sure if it does.

:cool:

Originally posted by Ben22
I see what you are saying Mr. C



In light of all this, would i be correct to say that the extensions are a more mature expression of what has already been learned, desiqned to help a kenpoists express motion and the principles in a more individualized manner, which is free of the initial structured training method. I do notice some more elaborate foot work, methods of closing the distance, and a few other goodies?

Damn i hope that made sense, im reading it now and im not sure if it does.

:cool:


The extensions can also be considered "what ifs", grafting methods. There is also a built in timing, regulating, and monitoring aspect in them as well as dimensional striking.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Thanx for the extra info clyde, dont hesitate to lend a helping hand in the future. :asian:

Originally posted by Ben22
Thanx for the extra info clyde, dont hesitate to lend a helping hand in the future. :asian:

Ahhhhh, all it gets me is trouble when I do, but thanks.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Mr. C,

Do you think that there is a "special" degree of black belt at
which the degree holder's rank makes (or SHOULD make) them a sort of trans-organizational resource in the kenpo world?

For example, at Nth degree, should high-ranking individuals from other organizations be brought in to confirm the individual's entitlement to wear that Nth degree, as opposed to a single organization's bestowing of that rank? There may be other implications of this "special" trans-organizational recognition, but I haven't thought through all of them.

If you agree with this concept, what, in your mind, is that Nth degree?


Thanks,

KenpoChip

I am curious to know more about Jim Mitchell.

On another thread there was talk about his influence on the yellow belt techniques, in reference to Alternating Maces. What was his involvement with the development of the system as we know it?

I know he split from Mr. Parker in the early 80's (around 82 or 83, I believe). Supposedly he was running several of Parker's schools in the San Diego area.

Another point: He is listed as one of the very few kenpoists to have the, *ahem*, cajones(?) to wear a 10th degree belt. I was told that the belt he wears was left to him by Mr. Parker after his passing. Why has he disappeared? Why does it appear like he is "hiding" or in "exile"? I know there were some personal differences among other kenpo leaders, but I haven't the slightest clue as to what. Ego? or Kenpological differences?

I am doing my Black Belt thesis on the comparison and contrast of the different arrangements of the system, i.e. 24 techs, 16. I originally studied Jim Mitchell's arrangement of the system, which is more Form based than the others. (Techniques on a particular list reflect greatly the Form associated with that belt)

Well, if there are any answers to these questions, I would extremely greatful.

Thanks,
Matt

Originally posted by lodestone
Another point: He is listed as one of the very few kenpoists to have the, *ahem*, cajones(?) to wear a 10th degree belt.

It's cojones :) And if I'm to wear in a long away future a 10th degree belt, I'll surely not have them :rofl: :lol::p :rofl:

Originally posted by kenpochip
Mr. C, Do you think that there is a "special" degree of black belt at which the degree holder's rank makes (or SHOULD make) them a sort of trans-organizational resource in the kenpo world?
Thanks, KenpoChip

Not really but it would be nice to see a less fragmented system.

Originally posted by kenpochip
For example, at Nth degree, should high-ranking individuals from other organizations be brought in to confirm the individual's entitlement to wear that Nth degree,
Thanks, KenpoChip

This would be very hard to do since many have different agendas and opinions on what they teach. Again it would be great to be able to work together within various organizations.

Originally posted by kenpochip
What do you think about a single organization's bestowing of that rank i.e., (10th Degree)?
Thanks, KenpoChip

I think it lends much more credibility to the individual if his/her peers all get together and award that high of degree than just the students and followers of said organization.

Originally posted by kenpochip
If you agree with this concept, what, in your mind, is that Nth degree?
Thanks, KenpoChip

Like I already stated... I don't think this is a difficult issue but, if it were I believe that 9ths and 10ths would be the appropriate positions of higher communication and exchange between organizations which from their examples would trickle down to the masses and create a much better environment of unity than we have at this point.

But that's just my opinion.

:asian:

Originally posted by lodestone
I am curious to know more about Jim Mitchell. On another thread there was talk about his influence on the yellow belt techniques, in reference to Alternating Maces. What was his involvement with the development of the system as we know it?
Thanks, Matt

From what I saw, he was of some help in the early 80's to Mr. Parker until he left the organization. Mr. Parker was at that time starting to organize better the curriculums and he just happened to be there at that time. I was involved as well as Skip Hancock and others during this period. I was there during one of his lessons once and from what I saw he was still learning the system. What ever his involvement was, usual Mr. Parker would run it by several others for opinions and critique as well.

Originally posted by lodestone
I know he split from Mr. Parker in the early 80's (around 82 or 83, I believe). Supposedly he was running several of Parker's schools in the San Diego area.
Thanks, Matt

His background was in the Tracy system then he converted back to the original Ed Parker System, he was in San Diego at this time, and would drive up for lessons, to my knowledge he was not running several of Mr. Parkers studios, but was only in control his own.

Originally posted by lodestone
Another point: He is listed as one of the very few kenpoists to have the, *ahem*, cajones(?) to wear a 10th degree belt.
Thanks, Matt

Well, I don't know about "cojones" lol, but he did leave Mr. Parker and go back to Tracy and get promoted up there, until he strapped on the 10th Degree, he only appears on my list of 10ths (just as everyone else that has decided to wear this rank) only to list those that "claim" that rank. It is in way a validation from me or anyone else but rather a listing of what they have decided to wear.

Originally posted by lodestone
I was told that the belt he wears was left to him by Mr. Parker after his passing.
Matt

He had a nice belt made for Mr. Parker when he was studying with him. It is my understanding that after Mr. Parker died, he went to Mrs. Parker and asked for that belt back, and as I understand it .......... she gave him back the belt that he had made for Mr. Parker originally.

Originally posted by lodestone
Why has he disappeared? Why does it appear like he is "hiding" or in "exile"? I know there were some personal differences among other kenpo leaders, but I haven't the slightest clue as to what. Ego? or Kenpological differences?
Thanks, Matt

After he left Mr. Parker, I have heard very little from him...... Who knows why he is like you said "hiding" or in "exile" lol you'll have to find him and ask him direct .......... I'm sure there are many that would like to know where he is.

Originally posted by lodestone
I am doing my Black Belt thesis on the comparison and contrast of the different arrangements of the system, i.e. 24 techs, 16. I originally studied Jim Mitchell's arrangement of the system, which is more Form based than the others. (Techniques on a particular list reflect greatly the Form associated with that belt)
Thanks, Matt

I don't know exactly when you studied with him or what "arrangements" you were taught, so I can't comment. If you studied with him after he left Mr. Parker, the arrangements, that you were taught are very possibly different than the ones that Mr. Parker arranged.

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7


Well, I don't know about "cojones" lol, but he did leave Mr. Parker and go back to Tracy and get promoted up there, until he strapped on the 10th Degree, he only appears on my list of 10ths (just as everyone else that has decided to wear this rank) only to list those that "claim" that rank. It is in way a validation from me or anyone else but rather a listing of what they have decided to wear.



He had a nice belt made for Mr. Parker when he was studying with him. It is my understanding that after Mr. Parker died, he went to Mrs. Parker and asked for that belt back, and as I understand it .......... she gave him back the belt that he had made for Mr. Parker originally.


Wow... That is *very* interesting...





I don't know exactly when you studied with him or what "arrangements" you were taught, so I can't comment. If you studied with him after he left Mr. Parker, the arrangements, that you were taught are very possibly different than the ones that Mr. Parker arranged.



The system had 16 techniques per belt all the way through 1st Black. 2nd Black had 32 techniques.

The order of the techniques was also different than the traditional EPAK system. They were moved around quiet a bit.

Do you know of anyone else that may have background info about Mitchell? Supposedly he (Mitchell) continued to train with Parker up until his death. I do know he was at the very least, still in contact with Mr. Parker after he left the IKKA.

I've heard lots of rumors and whispers, but I would like to hear first hand accounts.

Oh, and you mentioned something about witnessing a lesson that Mitchell had from Parker. Do you say he was still learning the system because he was being taught a completely new technique? I was curious because I am always learning the system; there's always more to learn!

Originally posted by lodestone
Wow... That is *very* interesting...





The system had 16 techniques per belt all the way through 1st Black. 2nd Black had 32 techniques.

The order of the techniques was also different than the traditional EPAK system. They were moved around quiet a bit.

Do you know of anyone else that may have background info about Mitchell? Supposedly he (Mitchell) continued to train with Parker up until his death. I do know he was at the very least, still in contact with Mr. Parker after he left the IKKA.

I've heard lots of rumors and whispers, but I would like to hear first hand accounts.

Oh, and you mentioned something about witnessing a lesson that Mitchell had from Parker. Do you say he was still learning the system because he was being taught a completely new technique? I was curious because I am always learning the system; there's always more to learn!

You might want to try the forum on www.kenponet.com ... a lot
more seniors post there, than here.

Mr. C. ,

thanks for your reply.

KenpoChip

Originally posted by lodestone
Wow... That is *very* interesting...


I find the truth unique to say the least. :)

Originally posted by lodestone
The system had 16 techniques per belt all the way through 1st Black. 2nd Black had 32 techniques. The order of the techniques was also different than the traditional EPAK system. They were moved around quiet a bit.


Go to my website ............ http://www.geocities.com/ikkorg/requirements.htm
and view the curriculum...... if it is different than that ....... it was not Ed Parker's doing. My curriculum that is posted was ok'd by the Kahuna!

Originally posted by lodestone
Do you know of anyone else that may have background info about Mitchell?


Sure, there are plenty that know about Mitchell, Chape'l, Hancock, Trejo, Kelly, and a host of others.

Originally posted by lodestone
Supposedly he (Mitchell) continued to train with Parker up until his death. I do know he was at the very least, still in contact with Mr. Parker after he left the IKKA.


I highly doubt that he "trained" with Mr. Parker after he "left" the IKKA, keeping in contact is another issue, Mr. Parker always liked to keep in "contact" with everyone - friend and foe alike!

Originally posted by lodestone
Oh, and you mentioned witnessing a lesson that Mitchell had from Parker. Do you say he was still learning the system because he was being taught a completely new technique? I was curious because I am always learning the system; there's always more to learn!

Yes, he and I were debating several issues on techniques and/or forms (Bruce Tomson my student, at the time was also present), in which he was greatly in need of correction.:)

:asian:

Originally posted by kenpochip
Mr. C. , thanks for your reply. KenpoChip



Your welcome!! anytime.

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I find the truth unique to say the least. :)

As do I!


Yes, he and I were debating several issues on techniques and/or forms (Bruce Tomson my student, at the time was also present), in which he was greatly in need of correction.:)


I don't suppose you can recall the situation. I guess this whole thing makes me question the validity of my kenpo. Is what I learned not valid EPAK? The arrangement of the system I originally learned was different from any other kenpo schools other than those influenced by Jim Mitchell. In Mr. Mitchell's defense, the kenpo I have learned is amazingly accurate, i.e. it matches, or varies only slightly, what I see on the rest of the Net.

Besides yourself obviously, what other well known Senior and currently high ranking American Kenpoists were still studying consistently with Mr. Parker towards the end of his life?

Originally posted by lodestone
I don't suppose you can recall the situation.


Of course I recall the situation! He was crossing over from the Tracy system and did not know all of Ed Parkers details on the system like the rest of us that are always learning. If you are asking did he know the Ed Parker System or not well all I can say is that he knew it as well as HE knew it, not like Ed Parker knew it or anyone else. I don't know all of what he learned only what I personally debated with him on.

Originally posted by lodestone
I guess this whole thing makes me question the validity of my kenpo.


I understand your position. You learned what he taught you, whatever that was. Comparing with other credible Ed Parker Students of the same era, will reveal just how close he taught or didn't teach to what others learned from Ed Parker.

Originally posted by lodestone
Is what I learned not valid EPAK?


I don't know..... is it? I would have to look at what you have learned to tell. If the principles are present, the skill, quality of movement, and knowledge is there, then it would be deemed good Kenpo to me I would reason. What I do know is that you learned Kenpo from one... Jim Mitchell, what all he taught you .... who knows?

Originally posted by lodestone
The arrangement of the system I originally learned was different from any other kenpo schools other than those influenced by Jim Mitchell.


Ok, that must tell you something then. Even if it is the same material, HE rearranged it to suit himself and/or his group.

Originally posted by lodestone
In Mr. Mitchell's defense, the kenpo I have learned is amazingly accurate, i.e. it matches, or varies only slightly, what I see on the rest of the Net.


I am not attacking Mitchell, I am only answering your questions. If you know the answers then why ask. Earlier you stated that, and I quote "the system I originally learned was different from any other kenpo schools other than those influenced by Jim Mitchell" unquote.

You must be trying to trick me....... :erg: Well, it didn't work ..... did it......:rofl:

:asian:

Originally posted by jazkiljok
Besides yourself obviously, what other well known Senior and currently high ranking American Kenpoists were still studying consistently with Mr. Parker towards the end of his life?


I am not aware of "ALL" that were stydying with Mr. Parker at the time of his death but some of them were.......
Skip Hancock
Paul Mills
Brian Duffy
Tom Kelly
Joe Palanzo
Bryan Hawkins
Jeff Speakman
Barbara Hale
Ron Chape'l
Gilbert Velez
Doreen Cogliandro
Flores Brothers
and I'm sure I left off others, its late.

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7



I understand your position. You learned what he taught you, whatever that was. Comparing with other credible Ed Parker Students of the same era, will reveal just how close he taught or didn't teach to what others learned from Ed Parker.



I don't know..... is it? I would have to look at what you have learned to tell. If the principles are present, the skill, quality of movement, and knowledge is there, then it would be deemed good Kenpo to me I would reason. What I do know is that you learned Kenpo from one... Jim Mitchell, what all he taught you .... who knows?



Ok, that must tell you something then. Even if it is the same material, HE rearranged it to suit himself and/or his group.


I am not attacking Mitchell, I am only answering your questions. If you know the answers then why ask. Earlier you stated that, and I quote "the system I originally learned was different from any other kenpo schools other than those influenced by Jim Mitchell" unquote.


You must be trying to trick me....... :erg: Well, it didn't work ..... did it......:rofl:



I didn't know the answers! :D The difference I was refering to was in the order of the techniques. I still received excellent instruction in the concepts and theories of Parker Kenpo. Just his point of view, I suppose, on the ordering of the techniques.

I am truly sorry if my comments or questions came across as inflamatory. I assure you, my intentions were innocuous. I think you have been extraordinarily helpful and forthcoming. Thank you.

Originally posted by lodestone
The difference I was referring to was in the order of the techniques.


Ahhhhh, now how did I miss that. Darn...... sorry.:(

Originally posted by lodestone
I still received excellent instruction in the concepts and theories of Parker Kenpo.


Well, I certainly hope so! There is always some good in everything, besides there is soooooooo much in print now that you can pick up much just from Mr. Parkers Books (which by the way is the main source of many Instructors that never met Mr. Parker or trained with any of his personal students).

Originally posted by lodestone
Just his point of view, I suppose, on the ordering of the techniques.


Since he started his own organization, I'm sure he rearranged the techniques to fit his own opinion on just "where" they should be (which in itself, would not hamper the system at all). Nearly every person that has started their own association has done this from their perspectives and personal "era" of Kenpo knowledge.

Many have "deleted" specific techniques, forms, sets, drills, sayings, pledges, etc. to suit their own needs (personally I feel that all the material was developed for a purpose and not to have it available is decreasing the overall "profile" of the systems knowledge base).

Originally posted by lodestone
I am truly sorry if my comments or questions came across as inflammatory. I assure you, my intentions were innocuous. I think you have been extraordinarily helpful and forthcoming. Thank you.


No, need to apologize, I didn't take it personally, thus the funny faces. I know you were just interested in a different opinion. I try to keep the history as close to reality as possible. I find that with time, some stories get diluted or warped .....LOL...... so the best way of retaining the truth is to talk about it to many.

Thanks for your questions!
:asian:

I had one of Mr. Mitchell's 3rd Degree Black's studying with me in the early 90's. He knew the techniques, but they were devoid of the Principles, Concepts, and Theories ... or maybe he was just up on them.

Boy, but could he fight!!!!

-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com (http://kenpo-texas.com)

Originally posted by Michael Billings
I had one of Mr. Mitchell's 3rd Degree Black's studying with me in the early 90's. He knew the techniques, but they were devoid of the Principles, Concepts, and Theories ... or maybe he was just up on them.

Boy, but could he fight!!!!

-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com (http://kenpo-texas.com)

So, he was lacking an understanding of concepts like zone of sanctuary, strong-line weak-line, reverse marriage of gravity, angle of incidence, etc.?

It blows my mind to think someone could learn the techniques without understanding the concepts!

That's like not knowing the names of basics, as far as I'm concerned!!

.

:rofl:
Whoops, I said:
I had one of Mr. Mitchell's 3rd Degree Black's studying with me in the early 90's. He knew the techniques, but they were devoid of the Principles, Concepts, and Theories ... or maybe he was just up on them.
I obviously meant ...maybe he was just NOT up on them, meaning the Principles, Concepts and Theories of EPAK.

You would be surprised at the number of Kenpoist out there who learned from the Big Red Book or who were not "close to the source" as Mr. Parker's Kenpo evolved. They may use words like "Torque" or "Marriage of Gravity" without much more understanding than that. Lots of room for variation out there. But hopefully as the number of practitioners increases, the quality and quantity of information increases (yes, I know this is wishful thinking on my part, but we can always hope.)

-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com (http://kenpo-texas.com)

I am making the switch to EPAK from another blended system, and I for one realize my weakness on priciples and concepts. But it is refreshing to learn them.


Jeff Nelson

Originally posted by molson
I am making the switch to EPAK from another blended system, and I for one realize my weakness on priciples and concepts. But it is refreshing to learn them. Jeff Nelson


Yes, they add a bit of truism or understanding with a slight touch of reality to the system somehow. I know when I started on them it was a bright sunny day.

:asian:

I never realized how much I enjoyed yellow and orange techniques. I guess your never too old to learn or as they say, you can teach and old dog new tricks.

Originally posted by molson
I never realized how much I enjoyed yellow and orange techniques. I guess your never too old to learn or as they say, you can teach and old dog new tricks.


You will always be a "student of Kenpo"......... regardless of who, where or what you already know or have accomplished.

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
You will always be a "student of Kenpo"......... regardless of who, where or what you already know or have accomplished.

:asian:

Ok student, That means it's your turn to clean the bathroom!;)

Originally posted by RCastillo
Ok student, That means it's your turn to clean the bathroom!;)

Just because we are students, doesn't mean we do away with the rank system "totally"!!! Now YOU go grab your toothbrush!
....... LOL.

:rofl:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Just because we are students, doesn't mean we do away with the rank system "totally"!!! Now YOU go grab your toothbrush!
....... LOL.

:rofl:

It broke..............:o

Originally posted by RCastillo
It broke..............:o

Likely story. :rolleyes:

I understand that SGM Parker was a very well rounded martial artist (obviously!). I'm curious as to what styles he studied formally, as well as others he may have worked with that influenced him.

Also I've heard, and believe, that a large part of Mr. Parkers genious was in extracting principles, cataloging them, and teaching their application in a manner relevant to our western mindset. Could you as a senior Kenpoist who studied with Mr. Parker expound on that? Possibly give some insights into the way his mind worked? I know that is asking a lot. But I'd be interested in anything you have to say on this.

And, thank you, sir, for your time and an interesting and informative thread!

Create? Discover? Refine? Reanalyze? Discard? Reinforce?

-Michael

Originally posted by ob2c
I understand that SGM Parker was a very well rounded martial artist (obviously!). I'm curious as to what styles he studied formally, as well as others he may have worked with that influenced him.


He played sports (football) boxed, did judo, and toyed with several different forms of the martial arts thru watching or with freinds that were involved (taekwondo, hapkido, kali, anris, etc.). Masa Oyama, Ohsima, James Lee, Ark Wong, Bruce Lee, Lau Boon sp?, and many, many others he would observe and compair their movements.

Originally posted by ob2c
A large part of Mr. Parkers genious was in extracting principles, cataloging them, and teaching their application in a manner relevant to our western mindset. Could you as a senior Kenpoist who studied with Mr. Parker expound on that? Possibly give some insights into the way his mind worked?


Well, he was an educated man with an inquisitive mind. He loved to analyize what he was studying and catagorize for easy reference what he found. Since the Kenpo was his topic and playground, this is what and where he played.... and inserted all his skills and attention to develop what he gave us to continue with.

Originally posted by ob2c
And, thank you, sir, for your time and an interesting and informative thread!


Thank You...... I'm glad you are enjoying it. Many have some good comments.

:asian:

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Create? Discover? Refine? Reanalyze? Discard? Reinforce?

All that, and probably more!

When I work out with other stylists, I can see a lot of the principles at work in what they do. But AK often does it better. So those principles woud possibly have been discovered, pulled out, reanalized, and subsumed under Mr. Parkers methodology. Excess movement would have been discarded. Then techniques created to teach and reinforce the principles. ;)



Gd7, thanks for the reply, and the insight into Mr. Parkers' personality.

Originally posted by ob2c
All that, and probably more! Gd7, thanks for the reply, and the insight into Mr. Parkers' personality.


That's what this thread is for.... Questions that you shoot at me. I may not know all or the correct answers but I'll give it my best shot. ** wink **;)

:asian:

I know you are making Sigung's Gathering this coming weekend. Are you going to be able to swing John Sepulveda's California Spirit Camp the next weekend?

Hope you make it.

-Michael

Originally posted by Michael Billings
I know you are making Sigung's Gathering this coming weekend. Are you going to be able to swing John Sepulveda's California Spirit Camp the next weekend? Hope you make it.
-Michael


Don't know yet.

:confused:

Which is more important:...........
"Time" in the Art or "Rank" in the Art?

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Which is more important:...........
"Time" in the Art or "Rank" in the Art?

:asian:

Always TIME! The more seasoned the person is, the better. Age and winsdom will always win out.:asian:

Originally posted by RCastillo
Always TIME! The more seasoned the person is, the better. Age and winsdom will always win out.:asian:

This bodes well for all us old and wise underbelts out here! Does this means it's not a demeaning thing to take forever to advance in rank? Maybe there's hope for me yet! ;)

Originally posted by tunetigress
This bodes well for all us old and wise underbelts out here! Does this means it's not a demeaning thing to take forever to advance in rank? Maybe there's hope for me yet! ;)

Demeaning? Never. We're all on our separate path, and will influence others below us as we guide them. The ones above us will be there to guide us, in return.:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Which is more important:...........
"Time" in the Art or "Rank" in the Art?

:asian:

Time as measured by amount of training they have done, not by how many "years" they have in the art.

Well someone had to lie about it :rofl:

It used to be in the old days that one was reflection of the other, but now it seems to be all about rank. :(


:confused:

Klondike (aka Chuck)

Originally posted by tunetigress
This bodes well for all us old and wise underbelts out here! Does this means it's not a demeaning thing to take forever to advance in rank? Maybe there's hope for me yet! ;)
How long you take isn't the issue, it's the quality you develop in that time. Of course, as we grow older and incur illness or injury, somethings necessitate change in the way we do things. So, you may be stronger at one thing than I am, or vice versa, either way, it doesn't negate your knowledge or skill, it just makes us individual. And I agree with Ricardo, we mid-level black belts are here to guide the underbelts and the senior black belts are here to guide us.

Originally posted by Seig
The senior black belts are here to guide us.


Now you just have to listen! :D

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Which is more important:...........
"Time" in the Art or "Rank" in the Art?

:asian:

Quality!!

There's black belts there with lots of years of training that work exactly the same as they did when they tested for they black and haven't learned a thing since...

Originally posted by Seig
we mid-level black belts are here to guide the underbelts and the senior black belts are here to guide us.

Well,

Falling in line with my normally critical modus operandi let me ask a few questions.

1) what grade would you give the AK mid-level black belts in this pursuit to "guide" in general?

2) what have you found to be the most difficult part of this responsibility?

3) the above statement implies a pecking order, are "underbelts" not allowed to go straight to the well for a drink?

jb:asian:

Originally posted by RCastillo
We're all on our separate path, and will influence others below us as we guide them.

I would argue that "guidance" which is really "knowledge" doesn't always follow the direction of gravity.

jb:asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Well,

Falling in line with my normally critical modus operandi let me ask a few questions.
I'll do my best to answer them.

1) what grade would you give the AK mid-level black belts in this pursuit to "guide" in general?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this question, but if I am interpreting it correctly, I call 2nd, 3rd and 4th Degree Black belts "mid-level". That is MY interpretation.

2) what have you found to be the most difficult part of this responsibility?
The most difficult thing to me, is passing along the knowledge I have gained at a pace slower than I would like. Sometimes it is difficult to remember that not everyone has my passion for Kenpo, and Ihave a tendency to try and give too much information to fast for it to be internalized and understood properly.
3) the above statement implies a pecking order, are "underbelts" not allowed to go straight to the well for a drink?

I do not feel that a blanket answer can really cover that. I do feel that to a degree it is disrepectful for a student to go over his instructor's head to the instructor's instructor. There may be times or situations where this is acceptable. It all depends on the situation and the practitioners involved. I do believe there is a "pecking order". For example, I would be highly displeased with one of my orange belts calling Mr. Conatser at home for help on kicking set. On the other hand,I have students preparing for their black belts, and since Mr. C is the head of the organization and in charge of the promoting body, I may not have an issue of they called him for input on their thesis or maybe about an Insight on Long 4 or their personal form that I may not have had. But, if htey took such an action without securing both my and Mr. C's permission first, I would be displeased with them. Nor would I find it acceptable for me to call Mr. LaBounty because I disagreed with Mr C or I wanted to know something I was told I was not ready for. Those are just examples.

Originally posted by Seig
I'll do my best to answer them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this question, but if I am interpreting it correctly, I call 2nd, 3rd and 4th Degree Black belts "mid-level". That is MY interpretation.

The most difficult thing to me, is passing along the knowledge I have gained at a pace slower than I would like. Sometimes it is difficult to remember that not everyone has my passion for Kenpo, and Ihave a tendency to try and give too much information to fast for it to be internalized and understood properly.

I do not feel that a blanket answer can really cover that. I do feel that to a degree it is disrepectful for a student to go over his instructor's head to the instructor's instructor. There may be times or situations where this is acceptable. It all depends on the situation and the practitioners involved. I do believe there is a "pecking order". For example, I would be highly displeased with one of my orange belts calling Mr. Conatser at home for help on kicking set. On the other hand,I have students preparing for their black belts, and since Mr. C is the head of the organization and in charge of the promoting body, I may not have an issue of they called him for input on their thesis or maybe about an Insight on Long 4 or their personal form that I may not have had. But, if htey took such an action without securing both my and Mr. C's permission first, I would be displeased with them. Nor would I find it acceptable for me to call Mr. LaBounty because I disagreed with Mr C or I wanted to know something I was told I was not ready for. Those are just examples.

Fair answers,

On grade I was referring to pass/fail or A thru F...

I agree with the 2nd answer and partially agree with the 3rd answer based on your situation (i.e. head of a school, etc..). Thanks for the input.

jb

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Fair answers,

On grade I was referring to pass/fail or A thru F...

I agree with the 2nd answer and partially agree with the 3rd answer based on your situation (i.e. head of a school, etc..). Thanks for the input.

jb
JB,
I don't feel that I am qualified to give a pass/fail grade to others teaching the art. On the whole it is a delicate subject.

Hey Mr C!

Sorry for not letting your thread go away ;)

1) How long was Mr Parker training before he earned his black belt?

2) How long was Mr Parker at the art when he decided to break off and impliment his own system of kenpo?

3) How long at the art was he when he donned a 10th?

Thanks much Sir
Brian

Originally posted by brianhunter
Hey Mr C!

Sorry for not letting your thread go away ;)

1) How long was Mr Parker training before he earned his black belt?

2) How long was Mr Parker at the art when he decided to break off and impliment his own system of kenpo?

3) How long at the art was he when he donned a 10th?

Thanks much Sir
Brian

Hi folks!
Brian asked me these questions this morning so I thought i'd answer them here as well...

1.Mr. Parker did indeed receive his black belt from Prof. Chow and the actual certificate he received is featured in the "Memories of Ed Parker" book. I'm in the process of relocating my studio so if someone would be so kind as to look and place the date on this thread?
2.Mr. Parker on several occasions tried to get Prof. Chow to come to the mainland with no sucess. He would also look at certain techniques and from his past experience on the streets of the kalihi district and see that some of the movements were not practical ,per se, in modern encounters. As far as offically when it happened, I'd probably say the 1960's where the actual "parting of the ways" occured.
3.The approximate date that Mr. Parker donned the tenth Degree Black Belt was subsiquent to the creation and completion of what was originally titled "Advanced Kenpo". However, Jay T. Will had recently published a book with that titile, So, Mr. Parker used "infinite insights into kenpo". That was his "masterpiece".

I think what Brian is trying to get to is that Ed Parker had a logical progression in regards to his rank promotions and agenda for the requirements he had for his ranks.
at one point some of his students got together and said to Mr. Parker "Mr. Parker, we feel that you should wear the Tenth Degree Black Belt." He got very offended and said to the person "I'LL tell YOU when i'm ready to wear a tenth!"
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE

Originally posted by KENPOJOE
...So, Mr. Parker used "infinite insights into kenpo". That was his "masterpiece"....

Joe and Mr. C;

Would either of you comment on the stuff in Infinite Insights that was put in "wrong?"

I took Book 5 into Mr. Duffy last night to go over the salutation. It seems that the open hand signifies the side you are doing, however we always use the Left and then Right open hands to announce the form but then proceed to do the Right side first.

So was that put in "wrong" to trip people up? Or do I misunderstand the Salutation.

And is there anything else that was "snuck in" like that?

Thanks in advance.
:asian:

Originally posted by KENPOJOE
Hi folks!
Brian asked me these questions this morning so I thought i'd answer them here as well...

1.Mr. Parker did indeed receive his black belt from Prof. Chow and the actual certificate he received is featured in the "Memories of Ed Parker" book. I'm in the process of relocating my studio so if someone would be so kind as to look and place the date on this thread?


June 5th, 1953

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/kirknchristy/EKPDiploma.jpg

D Hall wrote,
"Joe and Mr. C;

Would either of you comment on the stuff in Infinite Insights that was put in "wrong?"

I took Book 5 into Mr. Duffy last night to go over the salutation. It seems that the open hand signifies the side you are doing, however we always use the Left and then Right open hands to announce the form but then proceed to do the Right side first.

So was that put in "wrong" to trip people up? Or do I misunderstand the Salutation.

And is there anything else that was "snuck in" like that?"

Hi Doug!
There are several typos in the infinite insights series,mostly due to re-editing of the original documents. Originally, the forms were supposed to be pictures of Lee Wedlake, but were redone as drawings by Ed Parker Jr. Since the pictures were of Mr. Wedlake,perhaps you can email him for more details?

There are 2 schools of thought regarding the American Kenpo salutation.
One states that you signify with your right fingers pointing to the left hand so you can show "the right side of the form" and do opposite for the left side. However, you must retract the hand to chamber if you are to go through the full salutation at that point.

The second method has you pointing at the side you are performing [so that you point to the right hand first, then the left] I use the later method because you can move from point of origin from the signifying hand [right] from the left side. for a smoother transition.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE

Originally posted by brianhunter
1) How long was Mr Parker training before he earned his black belt?
2) How long was Mr Parker at the art when he decided to break off and impliment his own system of kenpo?
3) How long at the art was he when he donned a 10th?
Thanks much Sir, Brian


Some really good questions....... I had to do a little checking.... but here are my best "guesses".....

Originally posted by brianhunter
1) How long was Mr Parker training before he earned his black belt?


He had trained in several things including boxing, wrestling, and judo for about 6 or seven years prior to his black belt. So I would say close to 3 or 4 years to get his Black Belt (which was in '53 {he was 22}).

Originally posted by brianhunter
2) How long was Mr Parker at the art when he decided to break off and implement his own system of kenpo?


This was about the year 1956 or 1957 when he started his studio or shortly after.
[so about 8 to 10 years of experience]

Originally posted by brianhunter
3) How long at the art was he when he donned a 10th?


This was on or very close to the Internationals in 1976 or 1977.
{approximately 27 to 30 years}

These time lines are probably close however, the "time and era" that Ed Parker was in was critical. He laid the foundation of much of the material and thinking for "EVERYONE AFTER" if you look at what was going on at the time, he developed and organized much of what "all" have in some way, shape, or form, borrowed, rearranged or built upon. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to duplicate what Ed Parker developed, no matter what the time frame. To compare today's 10ths with Ed Parker's accomplishments is silly to me.

Ed Parker IS and always will be the "Senior" Grandmaster and "Founder" of this system and train of thought {American Kenpo}, no one should take those titles that belong truthfully to him. Now, there could be Senior Masters of the Art {10th Degrees} and if you have your own offshoot Association be a Grandmaster of that group with no problem. But, "Senior Grandmaster and Founder" I feel belong ONLY to Mr. Parker unless your system is at least 60 % totally different than his..... (none today are, that I know of yet).

Ed Parker, was "THE" spark that started the flame that started the fire which now has become American Kenpo and all of its offspring.

Just my opinion.....
:asian:

Originally posted by cdhall
Would you comment on the stuff in Infinite Insights that was put in "wrong?"

ok

Originally posted by cdhall
I looked Book 5 to go over the salutation. It seems that the open hand signifies the side you are doing, however we always use the Left and then Right open hands to announce the form but then proceed to do the Right side first.


No, that is incorrect, it was a misprint. One thing that you must realize it that at the time of that publication the method of mock up was "cut and paste" not the clean digital editing of today. So there were unfortunately several typos and cut an paste errors.

The last revision that Ed Parker worked on was: to point to the left hand, finger signal, then point to the right hand, finger signal with the appropriate "finger announcement" of the form you were doing, then from the right side you come up to the right shoulder and advance with the cat and warrior/scholar presentation and so on.

Many have created "variations" to indicate performing specifically one side or the other in many different ways over the years, but this was his last salutation of choice.

Originally posted by cdhall
So was that put in "wrong" to trip people up? Or do I misunderstand the Salutation.


I believe that it was just an oversight. However, Ed Parker was known to throw in little differences to see who was learning what from where [he did this a lot when he was asked to film things in the early years].

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
...
The last revision that Ed Parker worked on was: to point to the left hand, finger signal, then point to the right hand, finger signal with the appropriate "finger announcement" of the form you were doing, then from the right side you come up to the right shoulder and advance with the cat and warrior/scholar presentation and so on....

Thank you both, sirs. This is how Mr. Duffy explained it to me. However this also seems the opposite of how KenpoJoe just explained it.

KenpoJoe, would you confirm for me if the above is the way you do it, or if your "finger pointing fist" is across your body in front of your left hand when you then draw it back across your right shoulder to begin your salute.

I am just curious to know if I understood KenpoJoe correctly. Thank you.
:asian:

1. I know it varies, and I know it has so many factors involved, but in your opinion, an average yet hard working student, how
long till black?

2. Why does the answer to number 1 vary so much among
seniors?

3. Why do some feel it's necessary to make it take MUCH MUCH
longer to earn 1, than it did theirs? Was something added to
the system to make you less effective at the varied ranks?

Originally posted by Kirk
1. I know it varies, and I know it has so many factors involved, but in your opinion, an average yet hard working student, how
long till black?


In my experience with the way I train people it takes about 4-6 years. This does vary from case to case but on an average this is close.

Originally posted by Kirk
2. Why does the answer to number 1 vary so much among
seniors?


I don't think the word "seniors" is the issue but rather "instructors". Different instructors {Seniors or not} all have different perspectives and backgrounds on training. I think mostly it depends on your lineage and personal training experiences and what each individual wants.

Originally posted by Kirk
3. Why do some feel it's necessary to make it take MUCH - MUCH
longer to earn 1, than it did theirs?


That you will have to ask each instructor individually. As for my personal answer...... I wish someone would earn one under me in record breaking time, hell, if they put out the effort and can do the material I have no problem promoting an eager, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and skilled student..... I dream of those students....... LOL

Originally posted by Kirk
Was something added to the system to make you less effective at the varied ranks?


There was a lot of technical information developed in the 80's. This information has now crept into most of the curriculums. With today's communication tools, such as the internet, we have faster access to much more than at any of our prior times in our evolution {students today ask technical questions they have got from the internet to some instructors that the instructor has not heard of before}. I think this has something to do with the length of time in ranks today.

but that is just my opinion........
:asian:

Prof C,

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last answer in the previous post. The volume of information available is staggering ... whoops, I just staggered, well, I listed a bit to port, but am back on course now.

Really looking forward to next month. I hope everything works out so you can visit Austin.

Oss,
-Michael

Originally posted by Michael Billings
I hope everything works out so you can visit Austin.


Me too

Originally posted by Kirk
Me too


:boing2:

:o

What are the dimensional stages of action?

Originally posted by Elfan
What are the dimensional stages of action?


That is the updated term for the old phrase "Bridging the Gap"

1) Out of Range
2) In Range
3) Contact Penetration
4) Contact Manipulation

:asian:

What constitutes "in range." That I can make contact but not penetrate in a meaningful way?

Also, when did you say the DSA was developed as a teaching tool?

Originally posted by Elfan
What constitutes "in range." That I can make contact but not penetrate in a meaningful way?


Yes, you can make contact and it "can" be meaningful (grabbing, controlling, etc.) depending upon your definition of meaningful. lol

Originally posted by Elfan
Also, when did you say the DSA was developed as a teaching tool?


I don't know that I did, but I would say around 1986.

:asian:

hmm well if I can grab *and* control woudn't that put me at contact manipulation?

What constitutes "in range." That I can make contact but not penetrate in a meaningful way?


You are correct. In range is a surface phenomenon. This simply means that you can, by way of foot maneuvers and stance changes, make surface contact (minor strike, grab, etc.). Think of contact penetration as one of those bunker buster bombs. When you are in contact penetration range you are not simply able to hit the target, but you are able to damage the target by striking 3-6 inches beyond the point of surface contact.

Contact manipulation is simply a range where you are ALREADY in contact with that individual (Crossing Talon, Gripping talon, the Clinch, etc.).

Originally posted by Elfan
hmm well if I can grab *and* control woudn't that put me at contact manipulation?


Not necessarily....... just because you can grab and control momentarily, does not clearly define exactly "what" range you or a portion or you (say hand or foot) are at. Manipulation is the closest range then works outward to contact penetration, then in range then out of range....... but then again, you know this. :)

:asian:

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
I would be interested in looking at what he did.

:)

Ok, I've finally written it down. It probably needs some rewording to make it clearer, but I didn't know how to write it better...

It's name comes from the tiger claws you execute throughout the form, and also because you execute all the movements breathing slowly and with tension instead of power, except for the kick.

The form/set is done almost completely in a low horse stance, or at least lower than a regular horse stance.

1.- From attention stance, step left into a horse stance while doing a right horizontal claw (palm loocking downwards) and left vertical claw (as if checking) moving slowly from right to left.
2.- Reverse the motion and do a left to right left horizontal claw and right vertical claw.
3.- Cross your hands while going upwards and then uncross at head level to deliver double downward claws.
4.- Do double downward claws (they follow parallel paths).
5.- Step to 6:00 with right foot into a very low dragon stance (it is like a reverse bow). Do a right upward claw simultaneously (it must be a circular clockwise movement) and follow the motion until both arms are parallel and facing each other (left over right). Finish movement by tearing apart with both hands. Right hand must now be back and high, and ready to attack; and left, low in front, checking.
6.- Pivot counterclockwise into a left forward bow, do a high front right kick and land smoothly to 12:00. Do double downward claws.
7.- Step back with right foot and then to 3:00 into a horse stance, crossing your hands while going upwards at the same time and then uncrossing at head level to deliver double downward claws.
8.- Do a left to right left horizontal claw and right vertical claw, as in 2.
9.- Do right a to left right horizontal claw and left vertical claw, as in 1.
10.- Salute with left palm over right fist and close.

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Ok, I've finally written the form down. It's name "Tiger Breathing" comes from the tiger claws you execute throughout the form, and also because you execute all the movements breathing slowly and with tension instead of power.


Thanks mucho! This should be fun to play with.

again thanks KenpoMachine for taking the time and effort!!

:asian:

You're welcome! :cool:
And enjoy it!!
:D

I'm having trouble with #5 but let it percolate a bit- you lost me at "circular clockwise movement". What is the left doing? How do they end up parallel?

Up to that point and from #6 on is clear. I just get lost in that one move.


:cuss:

If you can figure another way to write that set I would be in your debt :asian:

The left does a smaller circle, but I've yet to figure what it's meant to be.

Oh- okay! *light bulb goes on over head*

Gotcha. A similar move is also in Saifa, which I just had the pleasure of screwing up repeatedly in class. Now I can see it.

Many thanks!

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Thanks mucho! This should be fun to play with.

again thanks KenpoMachine for taking the time and effort!!

:asian:

I can't find the original source of this "thread."

I would be interested in looking at what he did.

Where did this come from? Looking at what who did? Where?

Sorry I got lost. Mr. C. Should publish this thread as a book. I thnk I printed the first 30pages, but that was last year....
:confused:

Originally posted by cdhall
I can't find the original source of this "thread."



Where did this come from? Looking at what who did? Where?

Sorry I got lost. Mr. C. Should publish this thread as a book. I thnk I printed the first 30pages, but that was last year....
:confused:

It was like one month ago. I had to go back myself quite many pages to find it again...

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
1.- From attention stance, step left into a horse stance while doing a right horizontal claw (palm loocking downwards) and left vertical claw (as if checking) moving slowly from right to left.
2.- Reverse the motion and do a left to right left horizontal claw and right vertical claw.
3.- Cross your hands while going upwards and then uncross at head level to deliver double downward claws.
4.- Do double downward claws (they follow parallel paths).
5.- Step to 6:00 with right foot into a very low dragon stance (it is like a reverse bow). Do a right upward claw simultaneously (it must be a circular clockwise movement) and follow the motion until both arms are parallel and facing each other (left over right). Finish movement by tearing apart with both hands. Right hand must now be back and high, and ready to attack; and left, low in front, checking.
6.- Pivot counterclockwise into a left forward bow, do a high front right kick and land smoothly to 12:00. Do double downward claws.
7.- Step back with right foot and then to 3:00 into a horse stance, crossing your hands while going upwards at the same time and then uncrossing at head level to deliver double downward claws.
8.- Do a left to right left horizontal claw and right vertical claw, as in 2.
9.- Do right a to left right horizontal claw and left vertical claw, as in 1.
10.- Salute with left palm over right fist and close.

There is a mistake in #6 and #7. Visual memory is worse than muscle memory, and I wrote the set in an IT class.

6.- Pivot counterclockwise into a left forward bow, cross your hands while going upwards at the same time and then uncross at head level to deliver double downward claws. Then do a high front right kick and land smoothly to 12:00 into a horse stance.
7.- Do double downward claws.

At what time there were only 35 techniques in the curriculum? I think that was what was taught to me the first time I got into a kenpo class in the 80's.
We were somewhat behind, uh? :eek:

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
At what time there were only 35 techniques in the curriculum? I think that was what was taught to me the first time I got into a kenpo class in the 80's.


I don't know of a time when there were "only" 35 Techniques.

There WAS a time when the Orange - Purple - Blue & Green, had 32 techniques per belt.

If that is what you mean.

:asian:

No, not exactly.
When kenpo first arrived to Spain it only had 35 techniques. One of the explanations go like this, that those were the techniques Arturo Petit knew by the time he had to left Ed Parker's side at the beginning.

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
One of the explanations go like this, that those were the techniques Arturo Petit knew at that time.


That I don't know but could be.

:asian:

Originally posted by cdhall
I think the big deal is that he parted with Mr. Parker in the 80's on bad terms and also that his Panther videos promoted him as a/the Kenpo Master when Mr. Parker was alive (I think) and that didn't seem right.
:asian:

Well I have no idea about Larry Tatum's history, his feuds, or any of that. I have never met him, I don't know if he's friendly or not. Or approachable or a good teacher.

But when I saw his tapes, it was like an epiphany. I thought "that's what kenpo is supposed to be!". Now that is not a slam against other instructors. I have seen many good ones, and some bad ones. Some have thier mechanics done well...some move with great fluidity. But Tatum has it all, in my opinion. If you get a chance to see him move do so. I think he sets the standard of how Kenpo artist should move.

Mr. C,
I am not sure but I thought that I read somewhere in the Jorney, that in either the 1950's or the early 60's, that the entire system at the time only had thirty some techniques.

Originally posted by Ender
I think he sets the standard of how Kenpo artist should move.

i hope he doesn't move like a girl
:p :D ;)
just a joke

Originally posted by Ender
I think he sets the standard of how Kenpo artist should move.

I thought there was no standard? I thought Kenpo was an art
that you could taylor and customize to suit yourself, and your own
size/height/weight/ability/disability ??? :confused:

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll tootsie pop?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Originally posted by Kirk
I thought there was no standard? I thought Kenpo was an art
that you could taylor and customize to suit yourself, and your own
size/height/weight/ability/disability ??? :confused:

Certainly there is no standard type of movement, it's an idea. Get behind the wheel of a brand new Ford Focus and drive it for awhile. Then get behind the wheel of a Brand new Northstar Cadillac and tell me which one would you rather have if you had the choice. You're going to pick the one that suits you, your style of driving, what the use of the vehicle is, etc.. Same thing in Kenpo, you can feel the differences and see the difference.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Originally posted by Ender
Well I have no idea about Larry Tatum's history, his feuds, or any of that. I have never met him, I don't know if he's friendly or not. Or approachable or a good teacher.

But when I saw his tapes, it was like an epiphany. I thought "that's what kenpo is supposed to be!". Now that is not a slam against other instructors. I have seen many good ones, and some bad ones. Some have thier mechanics done well...some move with great fluidity. But Tatum has it all, in my opinion. If you get a chance to see him move do so. I think he sets the standard of how Kenpo artist should move.

Hmmmmm??? Having dummied for Mr. Tatum at a seminar in the Northwest I would say that he is approachable and very friendly. I think though, that you need to get out more if you had an epiphany watching his tapes..... Don't get me wrong, he does move well, as he should and would be expected for someone of his rank and experience. I just think that.... well it doesn't matter, we all have our own opinions. This is just mine, not meant to be a slight by any means.

Have a Nice Day!!! :asian: :asian:

Originally posted by Ender
Well I have no idea about Larry Tatum's history, his feuds, or any of that.

His feuds? Man, that makes Mr. Tatum sound like a pro-wrestler! :rofl:

Do you think he can whup the Untertaker? :confused:

:rofl:

Originally posted by Seig
Mr. C,
I am not sure but I thought that I read somewhere in the Jorney, that in either the 1950's or the early 60's, that the entire system at the time only had thirty some techniques.

If that is true, then Petit should had left Mr Parker and gone back to his country in the 60's...

Originally posted by Seig
Mr. C,
I am not sure but I thought that I read somewhere in the Jorney, that in either the 1950's or the early 60's, that the entire system at the time only had thirty some techniques.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Sullivan says this in Vintage Kenpo. I don't have a copy, can someone look? I think it is during voiceover during Black and White footage not during his conversations with Mr. Parker, Jr.
:asian:

Originally posted by XtremeJ_AKKI
His feuds? Man, that makes Mr. Tatum sound like a pro-wrestler! :rofl:

Do you think he can whup the Untertaker? :confused:

:rofl:

*LOL...nah...I was a purple belt when I saw his tapes. struggling, trying to get the moves right. I bought and borrowed some tapes of other instructors, then I saw Tatum. (BTW, at that time I had not seen SGM Parker on tape yet) and I thot, yeah, now I see what i should be targeting my techniques to be.

and yes kenpo is different for each person, but you should see him. He does move like SGM Parker, what can i say?*L

and..this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by Ender
*LOL...nah...I was a purple belt when I saw his tapes. struggling, trying to get the moves right. I bought and borrowed some tapes of other instructors, then I saw Tatum. (BTW, at that time I had not seen SGM Parker on tape yet) and I thot, yeah, now I see what i should be targeting my techniques to be.

and yes kenpo is different for each person, but you should see him. He does move like SGM Parker, what can i say?*L

and..this is just my opinion.

Well, I hate to say it's obvious I feel the same way about the man, I've been with him 13 years and he still WOWS me all the time with his knowledge, physical skills, and sheer projection of the art. Watch Locking Horns on the Orange Belt tape and watch me take a hard shot to the chin, only problem was he barely moved and it hit me like a train.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

What curriculum do the tapes follow? i.e. is there a listing somewhere of which techniques are presented on each tape?

Thanks,

Ian.

Originally posted by satans.barber
What curriculum do the tapes follow? i.e. is there a listing somewhere of which techniques are presented on each tape?

Thanks,

Ian.

We do the 24 system as outlined in Infinite Insights. You can ck Larry's website at www.ltatum.com and get the info. Each tape has 12 techs on it and they are about an hour long, some more, some less. Really good tapes for learning new material to be worked on with an instructor and they act as an artificial memory. I can't tell you how many times I used the tapes when I was learning the extensions to green.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Thanks Clyde, our syllabus is in a totally different order, so I'll have to see if I can find a tape that's got quite a lot of our techniques on. They do seem to come highly recommended by pretty much everyoen!

Ian.

Hmm, I've printed off a big list of the EPAK 24 syllabus, and gone through it highlighting all the techniques that we do in Kempo Ryu - I think there's enough similarity to warrant getting some tapes (we do 62 out of the 96 techniques in Orange to Green, and then less so after that).

I had a look at Master Tatum's site, and also the BKRU site where they're sold, but neither place lists which 12 techniques are on which volume, and I could really do with knowing (since the ones that I don't do from each belt could fall on one particular volume). I've seen the 24 techniques written in a different order for each belt that's all, in different places (the list on Master Tatum's site seem to have some duplicates and ommissions in as well).

If someone could be really kind and tell me which techniques are on Orange Vol 1, Purple Vol 1, Blue Vol 1 and Green Vol 1, I can work out the rest by process of elimination...I'd be really really grateful :)

Thanks,

Ian.

Originally posted by satans.barber
Hmm, I've printed off a big list of the EPAK 24 syllabus, and gone through it highlighting all the techniques that we do in Kempo Ryu - I think there's enough similarity to warrant getting some tapes (we do 62 out of the 96 techniques in Orange to Green, and then less so after t