May issue of "Martial Arts Magazine" from CFW Publishing (Inside Kung Fu), gives a decent explanation of some aspects of Sublevel Four Kenpo.

Id definately read it..... IF I COULD FIND IT ON THE FREAKIN SHELF AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE!!! arrghhh. Stores only wanna sell balck belt and grappling magazines anymore! :(

You can still subscribe to the magazine and get it posted home...

Btw, Kirk has a link to one of Doc's articles in CFW. The direct link is The roots of Ed Parker's Kenpo (http://japan.cfw2.com/article.asp?content_id=300&s=japan)

I saw it on the stands today (Books-A-Million).

Doc,

saw an article in another martial arts magazine recently- was just browsing so i don't recall the mag name-- it was about 7 types of kicks every woman should know-- now i could have been mistaken but i could have sworn it said she did Sub4 Kenpo-- that girl had some sharp form-- was that one of your students??

Originally posted by jazkiljok
Doc,

saw an article in another martial arts magazine recently- was just browsing so i don't recall the mag name-- it was about 7 types of kicks every woman should know-- now i could have been mistaken but i could have sworn it said she did Sub4 Kenpo-- that girl had some sharp form-- was that one of your students??

Yes, that is Rhonda Simpson in the same magazine, "Martial Arts Magazine." My highest and longest training female student. She has excellent body mechanics, and at the time of the shoot, she hadn't thrown a kick in 2 years because of a work related injury. She never missed a beat. Started studying with me in 1973, and works for the Santa Monica Ca. Police Department

someone will get mad over this but how many kenpo people
( upper ranks i mean purple and above) don't know P.points ?
just though i would ask?

yours in kenpo:confused: :confused: the outter rim is how far out? and is that east or west?

Don't work often on them? I know we (the school I train in) only work them when they appear in a technique, but not specifically. If you want to know more, you have to do some research on your own.

research?? no, i was just asking how many of you already know them at this time in your training? i teach them at purple belt.

yours in kenpo:asian: :asian:

I have learned a few of them and studied them, more so due to law enforcement schools and seminars. As far as the dojo, Im an orange at the school I attend now and was a green at the school I left (Both AK). I have yet to have anyone cover pressure points or nerve targets.

Originally posted by lonekimono
research?? no, i was just asking how many of you already know them at this time in your training? i teach them at purple belt.

yours in kenpo:asian: :asian:

We know they exist, but not much more, hence the research. And by *we* I', refering to the students in the school I train in.

hey guys start asking about it,or go to Parker's infinite insights#4
there is a chart inside study it because it will help you.


yours in kenpo:asian: :asian:

Originally posted by lonekimono
someone will get mad over this but how many kenpo people
( upper ranks i mean purple and above) don't know P.points ?
just though i would ask?

yours in kenpo:confused: :confused:

In most cases, I have found that the level of pressure point knowledge, as shown by higher ranking kenpo people, at seminars etc. is limited to pain points, ie. points that don't do much other than cause pain when struck a certain way.

Of course that's not to say that all high ranks are like that. I know there are guys like Doc out there that have a useable knowledge, that is they can use them under duress.

Also I would like to point out that this comment would only apply to the few that I have met. In Australia, our potential for contact with higher ranking American Kenpo people, is extremely limited.

--Dave

:asian:

Do pressure points only relate to meridians and nerves, or they can be also used towards control?
Is there any correllation with body mechanics, as in joint manipulation, or is it only body phisiology?

Thanks,
:asian:

PS Maybe we should ask one of the admins to include the P points in the thread's name...

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Do pressure points only relate to meridians and nerves, or they can be also used towards control?
Is there any correllation with body mechanics, as in joint manipulation, or is it only body phisiology?

Thanks,
:asian:

PS Maybe we should ask one of the admins to include the P points in the thread's name...

Whilst it is possible to execute joint manipulations without using pressure point applications, it is much easier and effective when you do use them.

Having said(written?) that, it is also true that you can use nerve strike/ manipulations to acheive the same or similar ends.
Of course, you can also say that all presure point strikes are in effect nerve strikes anyway, however you could not truthfully say that all nerve strikes are pressure point strikes.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it does.

--Dave



:asian:

Originally posted by lonekimono
research?? no, i was just asking how many of you already know them at this time in your training? i teach them at purple belt.

yours in kenpo:asian: :asian:

They are almost entirely absent from my training. I went to see Mr. Parker Jr. in 2000 because he advertised "Nerve Activations, Pressure Points" and something else. It was really just perhaps the only time this material in any detail at all by anyone I had had a class with since I began Chinese Kenpo in 1984. Interestingly, my original Chinese Kenpo teacher also knew and taught Accupuncture but did not specifically ever mention using nerve strikes, meridians, energy activations or anything else when he taught us techniques. I have the vague memory that he recognized such material but that he was either withholding it for later or considered it a separate study.

When I went back to Mr. Parker Jr in 2002 to see a seminar with the same advertised theme, he only briefly mentioned the topic but discussed "Uncle Joe/Passive Kenpo" and now I have decided to use this Passive Kenpo idea for my Black Belt Thesis.

I hope that I can find a way to study the Pressure Point stuff in earnest later. I think Doc and George Dillman are the only Two guys I know of that claim to teach this type of material outright.

Doc says his and Mr. Dillman's stuff are not really the same.

Mr. Dillman says I should buy the first book and then watch the first 6 tapes in order and then get to a seminar. I know, it sounds like he could also sell me a car, but this should also be sound advice. :confused: He also said he has some Ed Parker Kenpo people coming out to a camp of his this May.

Like I said, I think this is a good idea. Doc has a great philosophy about mastery being related to you being able to defeat your opponent without maiming or killing him and this is the main idea behind my Thesis. I'm going to need a year or two to learn enough about this to write about it, but I hope it works out.

I wish it was taught to me as part of the EPAK curriculum. Looking at Mr. Dillman's Advanced Pressure Point Fighting Book I see that Taming the Mace seems designed to hit 2 pressure points in rapid succession and I am sure that if Dillman can use these points to induce a knockout that Mr. Parker must have also been able to do it. It seems like Taming the Mace should not get past the 2nd Strike. It also seemed to me that we have several techniques that hit on or near a pressure point that we aren't "taught" and I doubt very seriously that Mr. Parker didn't know this by the time he did his last revision of the system.

Did Mr. Parker ever knock people out at seminars, or did he just "smack them around alot?" Mr. Parker Jr. told the story about the Van pulling Mr. Parker off the road. He says his Mom told the story as a gruesome tale but his Dad said "I smacked 'em around a bit." Or something very similar, so that is where I'm getting that phrase from.

Originally posted by D.Cobb
Whilst it is possible to execute joint manipulations without using pressure point applications, it is much easier and effective when you do use them.

Having said(written?) that, it is also true that you can use nerve strike/ manipulations to acheive the same or similar ends.
Of course, you can also say that all presure point strikes are in effect nerve strikes anyway, however you could not truthfully say that all nerve strikes are pressure point strikes.

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it does.

--Dave



:asian:

Thanks, it does :)

Just came to my mind, are many p. points also vital points? I'm thinking about some of the targets on finger set :D

Originally posted by Doc
May issue of "Martial Arts Magazine" from CFW Publishing (Inside Kung Fu), gives a decent explanation of some aspects of Sublevel Four Kenpo.

Dr. Chapel if I may ask. I was in barnes & noble today buying a book when I remembered this thread. As for going over to the mag. rack and finding this issue, Was that article almost exactly like the one you did for black belt? The techniques described were the same as you pointed out in the earlier black belt mag. you did. Now there wasn't enough time for me to read the entire article but it looked closely like the other. Regardless of the difference of the mag. your black belt article was really good & I enjoyed it alot. It had some good points to it and was some good reading.:asian:

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Dr. Chapel if I may ask. I was in barnes & noble today buying a book when I remembered this thread. As for going over to the mag. rack and finding this issue, Was that article almost exactly like the one you did for black belt? The techniques described were the same as you pointed out in the earlier black belt mag. you did. Now there wasn't enough time for me to read the entire article but it looked closely like the other. Regardless of the difference of the mag. your black belt article was really good & I enjoyed it alot. It had some good points to it and was some good reading.:asian:
Thank you I appreciate it. No the articles are completely different. The current one partly explains some of the many levels of SubLevel Four Kenpo, and doesn't really touch on nerves trikes. the next article will be on how to counter a street grappler. I think it's going in BB.

Originally posted by Doc
Thank you I appreciate it. No the articles are completely different. The current one partly explains some of the many levels of SubLevel Four Kenpo, and doesn't really touch on nerves trikes. the next article will be on how to counter a street grappler. I think it's going in BB.

Thank you for the info. I'll go out and purchase it then.

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Thank you for the info. I'll go out and purchase it then.

Please let me know what you think and bring the questions. I can take it. They limit the size of the articles so you never can say all you would like to. Plus they edit like crazy which drives you up a wall when you aren't when someone chops what they think isn't needed.

Originally posted by Doc
Please let me know what you think and bring the questions. I can take it.

Sure, I would be happy to. I have all kinds of questions :confused: some off the wall and some not but many questions nonetheless.

They limit the size of the articles so you never can say all you would like to.

Well judging by your posts here on MT as well as the kenponet you would have probably taken their entire magazine. Just think how you wouldn't leave them any advertising pages.;)

Plus they edit like crazy which drives you up a wall when you aren't when someone chops what they think isn't needed.

Now that would irritate me.

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Just came to my mind, are many p. points also vital points? I'm thinking about some of the targets on finger set :D

No, not really.
Vital points are really about damaging your opponent. Pressure point attacks are more about doing enough to stop the attack.

You know, like VP for example, Punch to the throat. Cause the larynx to bruise the windpipe. Assailant chokes to death.

PP sword hand strike slightly off centre of the neck, striking the St9 area, and Vagus nerve, as well as carotid sinuses, plus a few other juicy points and voila, we have a knock out.

Of course some might argue that the KO is not guaranteed, (what is?), but even if he is not KO'd you can still take the time to use the very best self defense technique known to man, you know, the 100 yard dash.

Either way the main objective has been achieved.

--Dave

:asian:

I was just wondering, do you use pressure point strikes as an integral part of SL-4, or do you concentrate mainly on Nerve disruptions and the like?

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by D.Cobb

PP sword hand strike slightly off centre of the neck, striking the St9 area, and Vagus nerve, as well as carotid sinuses, plus a few other juicy points and voila, we have a knock out.

:asian:

you have to take into account the health/age of the person you're striking- vulnerable sections of the carotid sinus/artery, the vagus nerve, the trigeminal nerve, the facial nerve, the liver, and the chest wall directly over the heart. Blunt trauma to these areas can cause nausea, neurological deficits, syncope, hemorrhaging, arrhythmias, and death.

Hey Jason whats going on here do you and Mr Ron have something going on?:confused:
i mean if you got an inside to get the mag that he did get me one:D lol living in south Jersey ,,well what can i say:)

yours in kenpo

Originally posted by D.Cobb
I was just wondering, do you use pressure point strikes as an integral part of SL-4, or do you concentrate mainly on Nerve disruptions and the like?

--Dave

:asian:
In SL4 it's all one and the same. You can't separate one from the other.

Originally posted by jazkiljok
you have to take into account the health/age of the person you're striking- vulnerable sections of the carotid sinus/artery, the vagus nerve, the trigeminal nerve, the facial nerve, the liver, and the chest wall directly over the heart. Blunt trauma to these areas can cause nausea, neurological deficits, syncope, hemorrhaging, arrhythmias, and death.

If you are doing some kind of manipulative medical work on these people, you would take these factors into account, but in a self defense situation, where all you want to do is end the situation, none of these factors are truely a consideration.

My goal in any self defense situation, is to end it as quickly as possible with minimal damage to myself AND my opponent. However, if their health should be so lacking that one of my strikes to their pressure point areas would kill them, then they really shouldn't have attacked me. I am not a violent person, but I believe that I have a right to respond, to an attack, the best way I know how. If someone dies from that, I will have trouble dealing with that, but I won't blame myself for their death.

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by Doc
In SL4 it's all one and the same. You can't separate one from the other.

So do you use the 5 elements as taught in Dim Mak?

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by D.Cobb
So do you use the 5 elements as taught in Dim Mak?

--Dave

:asian:
Essentially yes, but there are some modern applications from the Chinese that go beyond. In the old Chinese Arts it's not a component but just how it's executed. Like some arts have breathing, but the Chinese just breathe correctly. It only became the component Dim Mak to "outsiders." It allowed the Chinese to teach the arts to outsiders and remove information. I began my studies with a Chinese Grandmaster (Ark Wong) and Ed Parker did as well once he set up shop on the mainland.

Originally posted by lonekimono
Hey Jason whats going on here do you and Mr Ron have something going on?:confused:

Not that I'm aware of. However I'm just a little 'ole 2nd degree looking for more kenpo knowledge.

i mean if you got an inside to get the mag that he did get me one lol living in south Jersey ,,well what can i say

Tell me where you want one sent to and I'll put it in the u.s.p.s..:D I found the magazine at Barnes & Noble.

Jason i'm just trying to be funny, i get like that somethimes:D
it's just i've been trying to say HELLO to MR RON, :) maybe i should mail myself in a box to him lo,:p

yours in kenpohow long has this been going on? ace

Originally posted by Doc
Essentially yes, but there are some modern applications from the Chinese that go beyond. In the old Chinese Arts it's not a component but just how it's executed. Like some arts have breathing, but the Chinese just breathe correctly. It only became the component Dim Mak to "outsiders." It allowed the Chinese to teach the arts to outsiders and remove information. I began my studies with a Chinese Grandmaster (Ark Wong) and Ed Parker did as well once he set up shop on the mainland.

I had to go look this up and I found this information

http://members.tripod.com/ju_jutsu_master/id55.htm

which also looks similar to stuff in one of Dillman's books that I've seen.

So does this stuff all "come from" Dim Mak? Or is it just an "Ancient Chinese Secret" that really is not tied to a particular art.

No, not an Ancient Chinese LAUNDRY secret either! But I was not sure how else to put it. Chinese Common Knowledge? Kung Fu stuff? I'm curious. Did Ark Wong teach a particular system to you Doc?
:asian:

it was an old chinese man i think his name was wally wang
or som young chik,,:D now don't get upset just having fun:p

Originally posted by D.Cobb
If you are doing some kind of manipulative medical work on these people, you would take these factors into account, but in a self defense situation, where all you want to do is end the situation, none of these factors are truely a consideration.

My goal in any self defense situation, is to end it as quickly as possible with minimal damage to myself AND my opponent. However, if their health should be so lacking that one of my strikes to their pressure point areas would kill them, then they really shouldn't have attacked me. I am not a violent person, but I believe that I have a right to respond, to an attack, the best way I know how. If someone dies from that, I will have trouble dealing with that, but I won't blame myself for their death.

--Dave

:asian:

not my point. point is striking some one on the carotid sinuses for example can cause neurological damage and is potentially life threatening -- their age, their health (drugged/drunk, bad, genetic) will increase the probablity of greater damage caused by trauma to this area--but you can be in pitch perfect health and wind up dead.

blunt carotid artery trauma can, and has, cause carotid artery dissections or thrombus formation leading to a stroke or death.

just stating that it's no more or less potentially lethal than say-- shoving your fist into an attacker's throat.

you do what you got to do to protect yourself by all means.
:2pistols:

i do believe that the ability to control and restrain your attacker with minimum risk to yourself and minimal harm to your opponent is probably the highest physical/mental acheivement to be obtain in the study of the arts.

I don't believe your "basic" or even what some call advanced amerian kenpo (as in more complex extensions, or gaseous expansion, equation formulating, or maximizing the number of strikes in the shortest duration etc.) is design to reach this state.

there are some exceptions (Doc's Sub4, Ed Parker Jr.'s advocatation for "uncle bob" training,etc) but by large AK is an art based on brutal and relentless blunt force trauma to end a confrontation. getting more specific just makes you more efficient but no less brutal and damaging.

peace




:asian:

Originally posted by lonekimono
Jason i'm just trying to be funny, i get like that somethimes:D


I know, We all do from time to time.:D

it's just i've been trying to say HELLO to MR RON, maybe i should mail myself in a box to him

Well from NJ to CA that might be a little uncomfortable. But maybe start a thread with his name on it and say hi then maybe he will respond.

thats ok i'll call him:D

Originally posted by jazkiljok
not my point. point is striking some one on the carotid sinuses for example can cause neurological damage and is potentially life threatening -- their age, their health (drugged/drunk, bad, genetic) will increase the probablity of greater damage caused by trauma to this area--but you can be in pitch perfect health and wind up dead.

blunt carotid artery trauma can, and has, cause carotid artery dissections or thrombus formation leading to a stroke or death.

just stating that it's no more or less potentially lethal than say-- shoving your fist into an attacker's throat.

you do what you got to do to protect yourself by all means.
:2pistols:

i do believe that the ability to control and restrain your attacker with minimum risk to yourself and minimal harm to your opponent is probably the highest physical/mental acheivement to be obtain in the study of the arts.

I don't believe your "basic" or even what some call advanced amerian kenpo (as in more complex extensions, or gaseous expansion, equation formulating, or maximizing the number of strikes in the shortest duration etc.) is design to reach this state.

there are some exceptions (Doc's Sub4, Ed Parker Jr.'s advocatation for "uncle bob" training,etc) but by large AK is an art based on brutal and relentless blunt force trauma to end a confrontation. getting more specific just makes you more efficient but no less brutal and damaging.

peace




:asian:

Dam that was good. :)

Seriously, that was one of the reasons Mr. Parker took me in that direction. I am in law enforcement and Mr. Parker loved teaching cops and was always fascinated by the business. Some of his first students when he began teaching as a brown belt were Utah Highway Patrol. We had planned a series of books and videos specifically for professional security and police. Of course he passed before we could finish them, but I was left with a tremendous amount of information. Ed Parker's study with some of the great Chinese Masters is documented and they treated him like one of their own. Something they almost never did for "outsiders."

I have often said the same thing about Ed Parker's commercial version of his art(s) and been ridiculed by some for suggesting that it was "incomplete." If you remove the blunt force trauma and assaults on soft body tissue you have nothing left. Of course these are things anyone without any real training could do, and is taught in "self defense courses" for women all the time. Parker systemized these self defense course ideas, based it on motion so anyone could learn it, created a rank structure, and came up with a reasonable art that could be commercially sold and generate self defense skills rather quickly through it's conceptual teaching without his constant prescense. The level of destruction is the responsibility of the student, and while students were into "eye hooks" and elongated fighting sequences called "extensions" Ed Parker himself did other things. The highest level of proficiency has always been the ability to "win" the fight and NOT injure an attacker unless it was absolutely necessary. Parker knew that, but also knew he could never proliferate that in his lifetime. It requires much more knowledgeable instructors and constant hands on training that does not lend itself well to commercial teachings. He was the only expert and knew that he couldn't have it both ways in his lifetime. Proliferate and spread his art worldwide became the primary goal for reasons of his own, and that version of his arts dominated by sheer noteriety and numbers, but that doesn't mean others don't still exist.

Originally posted by Doc
Essentially yes, but there are some modern applications from the Chinese that go beyond. In the old Chinese Arts it's not a component but just how it's executed. Like some arts have breathing, but the Chinese just breathe correctly. It only became the component Dim Mak to "outsiders." It allowed the Chinese to teach the arts to outsiders and remove information. I began my studies with a Chinese Grandmaster (Ark Wong) and Ed Parker did as well once he set up shop on the mainland.

Ok, yeah that's the way our style uses it too. So my next question would have to be....
Is SL-4 Chinese Dim Mak? Is it a variation of DM or just loosely based on it? The more I learn about this fascinating side to Kenpo, the more intrigued I get.

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by jazkiljok
by large AK is an art based on brutal and relentless blunt force trauma to end a confrontation. getting more specific just makes you more efficient but no less brutal and damaging.


Fair enough I see your point now(no pun intended).

I was only using the St9 area as an example, what if I had said, "Strike into the Gb/L plexus, downward on a 45 degree angle using the pheonix eye fist, and create a KO.."?
Less danger, but the point is still made.

Truthfully though, the chances of being attacked by one of these people that you have described, those at high risk of hypertension etc., would have to be, I think, far less than being attacked, by someone in fairly good physical condition.

Whilst I am not disagreeing with you as to how dangerous it could be to strike the area in question, I find it funny that Earl Montague seems to make it his mission in life to tell us how dangerous it is for G. Dillman to attack these areas in his demos, but then does exactly the same strikes on his students on his tapes.

Now if he considers it ok to do to his students, then wouldn't it be acceptable for us to do these strikes on an aggressor that appears to be in tip top condition?

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by D.Cobb
Ok, yeah that's the way our style uses it too. So my next question would have to be....
Is SL-4 Chinese Dim Mak? Is it a variation of DM or just loosely based on it? The more I learn about this fascinating side to Kenpo, the more intrigued I get.

--Dave

:asian:

No it is not dim mak, but uses what many refer to as dim mak theory, however it's applications go beyond what some would call dim mak and it is an integrated aspect of SubLevel Four Kenpo.

Dim Mak doesn't go into negative or positive postures nor does it address ody mechanics as an integral part of what you do. Dim Mak is just the five elemental theory raw data. Real world application is light years from knowing the points.

And I am just as intrigued as you.

Originally posted by D.Cobb
Fair enough I see your point now(no pun intended).

I was only using the St9 area as an example, what if I had said, "Strike into the Gb/L plexus, downward on a 45 degree angle using the pheonix eye fist, and create a KO.."?
Less danger, but the point is still made.

Truthfully though, the chances of being attacked by one of these people that you have described, those at high risk of hypertension etc., would have to be, I think, far less than being attacked, by someone in fairly good physical condition.

Whilst I am not disagreeing with you as to how dangerous it could be to strike the area in question, I find it funny that Earl Montague seems to make it his mission in life to tell us how dangerous it is for G. Dillman to attack these areas in his demos, but then does exactly the same strikes on his students on his tapes.

Now if he considers it ok to do to his students, then wouldn't it be acceptable for us to do these strikes on an aggressor that appears to be in tip top condition?

--Dave

:asian:

funny, i've never been attacked by a "fit" person. drunks, addicts, lowlife gangster wannabe's -scum aren't spending their time in the gym building the perfect body so they can hit you with it--- but that aside-- it's irrelevant to the point-- fit or not- they don't call these places vital points without good reason;) --

as to what Dillman and Montaigue do for demo's is a great question- perhaps Doc want's to address these demo's- i recall a Ripley's B.I.O. Not show where a TKD man who claimed to be an expert in Dim Mak- showed how he could K.O. a half dozen people easily-- they had a doctor and medic team to examine the patients- it was actually a lame demo from a MA perspective (you know, the one waits for the other to attack before his "turn") but he did get the medics to validate that he could K.O. a guy by striking points on the arm alone-- now what was particularly interesting was the palbable disgust the doctor and medics had for the demo-- the doctor kind of figured that you hit guys on the head or with combos to the body and head etc-- that you could cause unconsciousness- the doctors and medics both contradicted the man's claims of harmless effect because of rescucitation teks based on simply rubbing the spine and back of the head-- that a state of complete unconciousness is extremely dangerous is a big "ya think?" in the medical community but Dim Mak sales folks keep trying to make it seem like it's simply "sleeping" and no harm is being done.

Dillman's vids shows him clearly smacking people in the head with great force -- it's almost a laughable matter when you think about it-- ask any pooloka boxer to hit you in the head while you just stand there and see if they don't bring the smelling salts out quick. the shockwave alone is enough to put someone out without bringing the points into any necessary play.

I've read Montaigue and he seems more rational in his approach but i didn't know that he's KOing people as well.-- frankly- it's a seriously dangerous practice and i don't need some one to prove that they can hit me in the head with good force to KO me-- specially when i merely standing there with a big grin on my face and "kick me" sign stuck on my back.:rofl:

Just a question.

If Dillman style Dim Mak works so well, Why don't I see it in full contact fighting?

As to Doc's sublevel 4, It seems to be much more complicated and better based in practical martial arts, and Mr Parker certainly seemed intrigued enough by it to pursue it with Doc Chapel. So I am still intrigued and plan to learn more.

Jeff

sorry it's always been there, just have to know what it is
but it's always been there,
i'm sorry doc:( but i have to say i leaned about this back in the late 70's and have been keeping it going in my school.:asian:

Originally posted by jazkiljok
funny, i've never been attacked by a "fit" person. drunks, addicts, lowlife gangster wannabe's -scum aren't spending their time in the gym building the perfect body so they can hit you with it--- but that aside-- it's irrelevant to the point-- fit or not- they don't call these places vital points without good reason;) --

as to what Dillman and Montaigue do for demo's is a great question- perhaps Doc want's to address these demo's- i recall a Ripley's B.I.O. Not show where a TKD man who claimed to be an expert in Dim Mak- showed how he could K.O. a half dozen people easily-- they had a doctor and medic team to examine the patients- it was actually a lame demo from a MA perspective (you know, the one waits for the other to attack before his "turn") but he did get the medics to validate that he could K.O. a guy by striking points on the arm alone-- now what was particularly interesting was the palbable disgust the doctor and medics had for the demo-- the doctor kind of figured that you hit guys on the head or with combos to the body and head etc-- that you could cause unconsciousness- the doctors and medics both contradicted the man's claims of harmless effect because of rescucitation teks based on simply rubbing the spine and back of the head-- that a state of complete unconciousness is extremely dangerous is a big "ya think?" in the medical community but Dim Mak sales folks keep trying to make it seem like it's simply "sleeping" and no harm is being done.

Dillman's vids shows him clearly smacking people in the head with great force -- it's almost a laughable matter when you think about it-- ask any pooloka boxer to hit you in the head while you just stand there and see if they don't bring the smelling salts out quick. the shockwave alone is enough to put someone out without bringing the points into any necessary play.

I've read Montaigue and he seems more rational in his approach but i didn't know that he's KOing people as well.-- frankly- it's a seriously dangerous practice and i don't need some one to prove that they can hit me in the head with good force to KO me-- specially when i merely standing there with a big grin on my face and "kick me" sign stuck on my back.:rofl:

I saw the Ripley thing and they kinda slipped one by us. What they did first is have the guy "knockout" a guy by himself previous to the demo to prove he could do it. Then the paramedics and doctors verified it. When he did the demo, which was pretty hokey actually, all of these people went down but his own people resuscitated them quickly without the paramedics. Most of the movements he performed in the demo wouldn't work singularly as demonstrated.

Any form of unconciousness, however induced, is dangerous. Period. When it is induced by blunt force trauma, the danger rises significantly.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dillman. He is very knowledgeable in the theory and point locations. However I do not believe in these "hard strikes" to prove a point in a demo and neither did Ed Parker..

I also have respect for Eric but I see him as someone who went straight to being a "scholar" without much experience as a "warrior." He is indeed knowledgeable of the information.

What is interesting is what I have not heard from people that I know is necessary to be functional in the right environment.

I have induced what we call PMD or "Physical & Mental Disassociation." JB felt it when he came out, and although it is disconcerting, it doesn't hurt and it's only a "tap." What it does is make you virtually defenseless. Some people fall down, (like my famous Vagas Camp demo) others become unsteady on their feet, and still others just stand there like zombies for 10 seconds.

Unconciousness can be induced with harder strikes, but I won't do them, because it doesn't prove anything. Anybody can knock somebody out if they stand there and allow it to happen.

It is more important to be able to do these things within the context of your techniques, and that is somewhat more complicated, and requires additional specific information and yes, skills. Many are surprized when they meet me that I don't talk about points. Instead I focus on proper body mechanics. One without the other is virtually useless, but if the mechanics are there, then you're on your way.

Most who do these things learn it from the Okinawan perspective which draws its "bunkai" from kata. There is a huge misconception that kata contains the applications, but in reality the kata is an "index of certain information," but not the applications of that information. Old school Chinese will tell you that. As I was taught, "Dim Mak" is basically the Five Elemental Theory, and point locations. How you use it was never taught to the Okinawans.

Although this information is a integral part of SubLevel Kenpo, (and gets the most interest) most have no idea how important the body mechanics are. I never seen anyone who had the body mechanics necessary to execute the information properly within the context of techniques as we use them. Parker was a sly genius who had more knowledge than most have ever seen or know about from his written works.

Originally posted by Doc
I saw the Ripley thing and they kinda slipped one by us. What they did first is have the guy "knockout" a guy by himself previous to the demo to prove he could do it. Then the paramedics and doctors verified it. When he did the demo, which was pretty hokey actually, all of these people went down but his own people resuscitated them quickly without the paramedics. Most of the movements he performed in the demo wouldn't work singularly as demonstrated.

Any form of unconciousness, however induced, is dangerous. Period. When it is induced by blunt force trauma, the danger rises significantly.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dillman. He is very knowledgeable in the theory and point locations. However I do not believe in these "hard strikes" to prove a point in a demo and neither did Ed Parker..

I also have respect for Eric but I see him as someone who went straight to being a "scholar" without much experience as a "warrior." He is indeed knowledgeable of the information.

What is interesting is what I have not heard from people that I know is necessary to be functional in the right environment.

I have induced what we call PMD or "Physical & Mental Disassociation." JB felt it when he came out, and although it is disconcerting, it doesn't hurt and it's only a "tap." What it does is make you virtually defenseless. Some people fall down, (like my famous Vagas Camp demo) others become unsteady on their feet, and still others just stand there like zombies for 10 seconds.

Unconciousness can be induced with harder strikes, but I won't do them, because it doesn't prove anything. Anybody can knock somebody out if they stand there and allow it to happen.

It is more important to be able to do these things within the context of your techniques, and that is somewhat more complicated, and requires additional specific information and yes, skills. Many are surprized when they meet me that I don't talk about points. Instead I focus on proper body mechanics. One without the other is virtually useless, but if the mechanics are there, then you're on your way.

Most who do these things learn it from the Okinawan perspective which draws its "bunkai" from kata. There is a huge misconception that kata contains the applications, but in reality the kata is an "index of certain information," but not the applications of that information. Old school Chinese will tell you that. As I was taught, "Dim Mak" is basically the Five Elemental Theory, and point locations. How you use it was never taught to the Okinawans.

Although this information is a integral part of SubLevel Kenpo, (and gets the most interest) most have no idea how important the body mechanics are. I never seen anyone who had the body mechanics necessary to execute the information properly within the context of techniques as we use them. Parker was a sly genius who had more knowledge than most have ever seen or know about from his written works.

Whilst I would agree with Doc, that any KO is dangerous, sometimes they would be the least dangerous option. As to the "taps", I have been fortunate and honoured enough to be my instructors uke when he demonstrates the pressure point applications of kata or drills.
Most of the time I just get tapped, and this is well enough to stop me cold. PMD, Doc would have to be the best description I have heard for what happens to you when struck.
My instructor got his original pressure point instruction from Mr. D. but has since gone on to study with different people from all over the world, not just at seminars either. He is also the only Ryukyu Kempo instructor, I have seen or heard of that doesn't do static taps. Like Doc says, body mechanics is an integral part of correct and effective point striking. If I stand still and just let my instructor hit me then he would need a different technique to if I was coming in trying to take his head off. It's kind of like trying to block the punch from a novice that goes either left or right instead of straight at you. The mechanics are wrong, and it is just wasted motion.

--Dave

:asian:

Originally posted by D.Cobb
Whilst I would agree with Doc, that any KO is dangerous, sometimes they would be the least dangerous option. As to the "taps", I have been fortunate and honoured enough to be my instructors uke when he demonstrates the pressure point applications of kata or drills.
Most of the time I just get tapped, and this is well enough to stop me cold. PMD, Doc would have to be the best description I have heard for what happens to you when struck.
My instructor got his original pressure point instruction from Mr. D. but has since gone on to study with different people from all over the world, not just at seminars either. He is also the only Ryukyu Kempo instructor, I have seen or heard of that doesn't do static taps. Like Doc says, body mechanics is an integral part of correct and effective point striking. If I stand still and just let my instructor hit me then he would need a different technique to if I was coming in trying to take his head off. It's kind of like trying to block the punch from a novice that goes either left or right instead of straight at you. The mechanics are wrong, and it is just wasted motion.

--Dave

:asian:

Right on and good for you.

I found the magazine, bought it and I will make some comments and ask a couple of questions..

First let me say that they put together a nice spread for you..and it was good to see some of the guys I've actually met (i.e. Mr. Perez and Doc Murdock) and to see others still at it..(is Sandep Rahi the guy that was a Blue belt testing in that vid you sent my yrs ago..if so he would have been the last in line and had Mr. Humphrey (the front of the line) as his uki...). Anyway, good to see them all the same.

First question..pg 48. 5th paragraph..."...and subsequent improvements." It seems to me that you have "improved" on the base standard the SGM Parker taught you to a great degree. Many of the concepts you speak of now weren't even "defined" in the material we discussed 4 yrs ago (i.e. Negative Body Posture, Timing & Breathing Signatures, etc...) and the execution of techniques seem to have "evolved" for lack of a better word. Heck, you even added at least one technique on the yellow chart and this is not including the long gun stuff you've incorporated or your CMA's. So my question is in the last 13 yrs just how much has changed in the way Dr. Ron Chape'l executes the Kenpo SGM Parker showed him. Are you quickly (or slowly) reaching the point where you've extrapolated more from your SL-4 equation formula and the Keys you were given, than what you were originally shown? Are YOU now doing only 10% or what SGM Parker originally taught you?

on Pg 50, last paragraph before, "Psychology of Confrontation". "by definition, control manipulation is not a part of Motion Kenpo and is not included in the four ranges of combat as found in Ed Parker's "Encyclopedia of Kenpo".

Edmund mentions on viii of EOK "the terminology....is not cast in cement". But control manipulation is defined on pg 33 along with control release mechanisms and control mainenance. Doesn't this refer to aspects within Kenpo (MK in fact)? It seemed to me that if SGM Parker were referring to another art he might have said, "a term used in..." as with some of the other definitions.


In the "level's" mentioned where do you CMA's come into play?

At what point are "enhancements" accepted into the curriculum on a technique? or a "definition" accepted as law? Do you have the first, last and only say? Have others contributed in the development of SL-4 principles and concepts (particularly Perez or Angell since I know they are your two main bangers), can you give an example?

Fourth, Have you put together a succession plan? Do you think the strict educational based model allows for the longevity of SL-4 existence? And will the boys be able to carry the torch the way you have when you step down from active duty? Are any of the guys looking at expanding into their own schools? Is that encouraged?

jb :asian:

First let me say that they put together a nice spread for you..and it was good to see some of the guys I've actually met (i.e. Mr. Perez and Doc Murdock) and to see others still at it..(is Sandep Rahi the guy that was a Blue belt testing in that vid you sent my yrs ago..if so he would have been the last in line and had Mr. Humphrey (the front of the line) as his uki...). Anyway, good to see them all the same.

Yeah, I seem to have a problem getting rid of guys. I have never lost a student to another teacher. Some get caught up in life, job, family and slow down, but they come back or not at all with anyone. I’m shooting the next installment for the magazine this week. It will be an anti-grappling piece.

First question..pg 48. 5th paragraph..."...and subsequent improvements." It seems to me that you have "improved" on the base standard the SGM Parker taught you to a great degree.

Well actually I have done a great deal of work the last 13 years since Mr. Parker passed. When he was alive, I wasn’t writing as much because in many ways he hadn’t decided what he wanted exactly. Lots of experimentation on his part.

Many of the concepts you speak of now weren't even "defined" in the material we discussed 4 yrs ago (i.e. Negative Body Posture, Timing & Breathing Signatures, etc...)

Much of it was in my own notes and ideas and had not yet implemented. but you must also remember Parker and I studied with some of the same Chinese masters, although not at the same time.

and the execution of techniques seem to have "evolved" for lack of a better word.

The problem is the same one Parker had. You cannot evolve a curriculum if you don’t have Black Belts that know and can support it. I hold back material until I have enough guys that understand and can teach it, so the support system has to be in place if it is to survive. That’s why expansion is slow. You can’t just certify someone unless they really know what they are doing. Otherwise, I’m just doing what everyone else is doing from a commercial perspective. Parker had the same problem.

Heck, you even added at least one technique on the yellow chart

Actually I’ve added 6 to even the charts out and to address some things I felt were necessary at that level.

and this is not including the long gun stuff you've incorporated or your CMA's.

Yeah I forgot I shared some of that with you. The long gun techniques were absolutely necessary and needed to be addressed. Shot Guns and rifles are probably more common in some areas than handguns. For the record I saw Ed Parker teach long gun techniques to white belts 30 years ago so it‘s not my original idea, but something we knew we needed to address for our law enforcement projects.

So my question is in the last 13 yrs just how much has changed in the way Dr. Ron Chape'l executes the Kenpo SGM Parker showed him.

Well to be honest the way I execute hasn’t changed much. My students look at video of me from 15 years ago and see the same thing (just a tad thinner) in my execution. But if you go back to the mid-seventies I see a difference.

What has changed substantially is what I teach and when I teach it. My current staff is learning thing now that my beginners will learn next month. They complain all the time that I “change” things. The same complaint some had about Parker. But like I said previously I just find ways to codify what I do, and then it can be taught specifically and the staff can support the instruction. If you stay away from me for a year, you’ll be surprised when you come back.

Are you quickly (or slowly) reaching the point where you've extrapolated more from your SL-4 equation formula and the Keys you were given, than what you were originally shown?

I know what you mean but there is no “equation formula” in a strict curriculum, and there really are no “master keys” either. It’s just coming to an understanding of certain information and applying it in a functional manner. Than you have to figure out how, and when to convey it to your students. Then you have to codify the curriculum so it makes sense and put it in a course book at the appropriate level. You really begin to appreciate it when you don’t have the “Old Man” to go to and say “Hey Boss, remember what we worked on yesterday. How did that go again, my notes don’t make sense to me. Fortunately he taught me how to “think” and he placed a great emphasis on extrapolation. But remember some things I couldn’t ask him when he was here because he wasn’t sure what he wanted himself sometimes.

Are YOU now doing only 10% or what SGM Parker originally taught you?

Honestly I’m probably doing more than he taught me physically, but that’s because I now understand what I’m doing. Intellectually I’m still working on it and a lot I’ve created based on what he gave me. So I always give him the credit. Some would like me to take more credit for what I’ve done but without him it would have never happened. He’ll always be the man.

on Pg 50, last paragraph before, "Psychology of Confrontation". "by definition, control manipulation is not a part of Motion Kenpo and is not included in the four ranges of combat as found in Ed Parker's "Encyclopedia of Kenpo".

Yes that’s true. He purposely excluded it from the four (4) ranges he defined for the motion commercial version of his art. Eeryone knows there is so much missing from the commercial art by necessity.

Edmund mentions on viii of EOK "the terminology....is not cast in cement".

Absolutely. Parker was adding, and dropping stuff all the time. But more important he had very specific guidelines for creating “terms.”

But control manipulation is defined on pg 33

Yeah that’s why I always ask people why isn’t it in the four ranges? Good question.

along with control release mechanisms and control mainenance. Doesn't this refer to aspects within Kenpo (MK in fact)?

Actually yes, and no. Can they be there? Yes. Are they there? Not that I’ve seen. But there are a lot I haven’t seen. I just don’t think so knowing where many of the modern guys come from. But then it can all boil down to semantics. I’ve had a couple guys tell me they’ve been doing SubLevel Four for 15 years, or their instructor teaches it. Of course I know that’s impossible.

It seemed to me that if SGM Parker were referring to another art he might have said, "a term used in..." as with some of the other definitions.

Well that’s the point that bothers everyone, and you're right. What I do is not a separate art. When you came into town you recognized just about everything we did. I do what Ed Parker did, not what he generally taught. It’s fairly documented that he did a lot of stuff that his students couldn’t understand or do. I always mention the “slap-check.” He never wrote a single word about it, but clear as day you see him doing it. In his last manuals he wrote “positional check.” He never did that unless he was teaching a seminar and going slow. When he speeded up he couldn’t help himself. My students are taught “slap-checks” and know when and where and why, and where not as well. There are a couple guys that mimicked Parker but they can’t tell you why they do it or what it does, or why it can be dangerous if you do it wrong.

In the "level's" mentioned where do you CMA's come into play?

That is actually the fourth level where a student is compelled to learn “Control Manipulation” for about 80% OF ALL previously learned techniques. The techniques still contain all the misalignment technology as well as the nerves activations, but you must manipulate, and control the situation completely to a stand still. Physically it is the most demanding level and isn’t introduced (beyond attacks) until after Black. It truly is the higher form of the science.

At what point are "enhancements" accepted into the curriculum on a technique? or a "definition" accepted as law? Do you have the first, last and only say?

The techniques are heavily “enhanced” as is. It’s just a matter of how much you teach. Once something fits into place, I include it in our Glossary. Thee is no such thing as "basics." Only a basic understanding.

Have others contributed in the development of SL-4 principles and concepts (particularly Perez or Angell since I know they are your two main bangers), can you give an example?

I get suggestions from Perez and Angell because they understand it the best. Some are good some not. I have the last word, because I’m the only one that knows where I’m going and how it might “fit’ with other concepts. Terminology must make sense and cannot be subjectively inappropriate. Some create terms just to be different from Parker. Terminology should be descriptive of what you’re doing and have some basis in its reality.

I have had associates who look at what I have done and have made comments as well. People like my old friend Grandmaster Douglas Wong, or my late friend Dr. Bernd Weiss, or my old college room mate Senior Guru Cliff Stewart. Then there is (the late) Dominic and Helen Corrolo, etc. Jack Autry has sat on my tests, as well as Barbara Hale, and Steve Herring, and of course my student Dr. Lincoln Conti who is also on the tree first generation. (He actually met Parker about a year after I did). The consensus seems to be what we do is Kenpo the way the Old Man did it. But that is a luxury the commercial schools don’t have, and neither did he actually.

Fourth, Have you put together a succession plan? Do you think the strict educational based model allows for the longevity of SL-4 existence?

Burying me already eh? Yes I am consistently working on my succession plan, and I actually have got 2 Black Belts on my staff into school who will be doctors in a couple more years, who are enhancing their knowledge specifically to bring to my teaching. One of them is Angell. Yes it will survive, but never on the level as the commercial Kenpo. It’ll survive because It’s knowledge and skill driven. I know that’s what everybody says but you met me so you know what I mean.

And will the boys be able to carry the torch the way you have when you step down from active duty?

I suspect they will be in similar shape when I’m gone as I was when Parker left. But they know a lot more, and I’ve taught them how to think. I always tell my students to never believe me. Always question and ask for physical proof. Every generation is supposed to move forward beyond their teacher. I expect nothing less. I feel sorry for them if they have to deal with my daughters.

Are any of the guys looking at expanding into their own schools? Is that encouraged?

Are you kidding me? I can’t get those guys to miss class for a week. I’ve asked them to go out and start a small program somewhere, and they all say the same thing. “But we’ll miss your class.” The student body ages range from 20 to 62. All of them are extremely intelligent, professional people, and very well educated. No matter what I say, no matter how much I jump up and down, they refuse to leave. The four extension schools instructors are diligent about their classes as well. One flies in from Arizona once a month. I can’t get rid of him either.

My eyes hurt:erg:

Doc,

Thanks for the insight...You said a few things I've never seen you mention before.

jb :asian:

I have induced what we call PMD or "Physical & Mental Disassociation." JB felt it when he came out, and although it is disconcerting, it doesn't hurt and it's only a "tap." What it does is make you virtually defenseless. Some people fall down, (like my famous Vagas Camp demo) others become unsteady on their feet, and still others just stand there like zombies for 10 seconds.

Is this what you "tapped" me with on my visit?

I never publicly thanked you for sharing your time, knowledge and materials with me during me visit. To any who are interested, you won't go wrong visiting the good doc. He was a most gracious host, and his studemts were well trained and working hard.

Sidebar: Doc, Did you receive my email from a month or so back? I never heard back from you. I still never found any info on water soluble decals, other than 8½"x11" sheets that you can buy for your own color printer. If you want the other type of decals, we will have a large-format digital printer in our shop within the next week or so, which can print any kind of decal, regardless of number of colors or detail. It can actually print photo-quality detail. Let me know if you need a sample or anything else.

Originally posted by lonekimono
My eyes hurt:erg:

Always happens to me too when someone flicks on the lights..hee,hee,hee...:cool:

Originally posted by warriorsage
Is this what you "tapped" me with on my visit?

Yes it was.

I never publicly thanked you for sharing your time, knowledge and materials with me during me visit. To any who are interested, you won't go wrong visiting the good doc. He was a most gracious host, and his studemts were well trained and working hard.

My pleasure. I always love talking with intelligent kenpo people. Thanks for the compliment on the students.

Sidebar: Doc, Did you receive my email from a month or so back?

No I didn't, I just figured you were real busy with your business.


I never heard back from you. I still never found any info on water soluble decals, other than 8½"x11" sheets that you can buy for your own color printer. If you want the other type of decals, we will have a large-format digital printer in our shop within the next week or so, which can print any kind of decal, regardless of number of colors or detail. It can actually print photo-quality detail. Let me know if you need a sample or anything else.
That's sounds good. I think we need to give them a try. I'm waiting for my graphics guy to make a change in the designs we have, then we can do some.

Thanks for everything. Hope to hear from you soon.

Originally posted by Doc
Please let me know what you think and bring the questions. I can take it.

It was a good article when I read it. However I only read it once and for me...well.....sometimes I need to read things a few times before getting the most of the article.

Personally I would have preferred to read more of what your SL-4 material is all about. You did say it was cut down then edited which would peeve me but what can you do.

Doc,

I might get a chance to see this magazine tonight.
What do you think of publishing your entire text here so we can compare it to the magazine?

It might answer Jason's question among other things.

I don't know if the magazine prohibits this or anything, but you could also publish it on your own site I think.

I think you have some unedited articles there. What do you think of publishing other "unedited" articles on your site after they have been in a magazine?

When I first saw "unedited" I thought you meant that you still had to run spell-check or something. :eek:

But do you mean that those articles on your site are what you turned in for publication to someone who later edited them for publication? What do you mean on your site by "unedited article?"

What do you think of this idea?

Now I've had the chance to go back and read your article a couple three more times I'll start with my questions now:D .

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

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

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

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

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

6. I have to assume the picture sequence on pg. 49 is your variation to Triggered Salute. As the attacker steps in with the front direct right shoulder push they step into a rear twist stance keeping the shoulders square. The next sequence was to push drag forward from the twist; why not unwind from the twist had the attacker really commited to the push. I feel the push-drag from that position would be uncomfortable and hard to execute. (I'm sure this is one of those things that has to be shown & felt to understand)

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

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

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

I think that's it for now.

:asian: :asian:

Originally posted by cdhall
Doc,

I might get a chance to see this magazine tonight.
What do you think of publishing your entire text here so we can compare it to the magazine?

It might answer Jason's question among other things.

I don't know if the magazine prohibits this or anything, but you could also publish it on your own site I think.

I think you have some unedited articles there. What do you think of publishing other "unedited" articles on your site after they have been in a magazine?

When I first saw "unedited" I thought you meant that you still had to run spell-check or something. :eek:

But do you mean that those articles on your site are what you turned in for publication to someone who later edited them for publication? What do you mean on your site by "unedited article?"

What do you think of this idea?

I will be publishing the articles on our new site when it is ready. Redesigned and no friggin "pop ups."

Originally posted by Doc
I will be publishing the articles on our new site when it is ready. Redesigned and no friggin "pop ups."

Keep us updated :)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
Keep us updated :)

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

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

The tailoring in SubLevel Four is more like what is in the traditional Chinese and other arts. Tailoring as in Parker's commercial kenpo is a complete anamoly, but neccessary in a business model with an emphasis on numbers and quick self defense skills.

Originally posted by Doc
“It’s all in the execution My Brudda.”

I understand :asian:

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

2. If I understood properly level 1 is taught the complete curriculum. Then level 2,3,&4 are once again taught completely through the curriculum again? If this is the case I can see how an individual will get extremely sharp by continually learning, & refining the system that many times over again.:asian:

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Very interesting insight...

jb:asian:

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I understand :asian:

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


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

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

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

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

At the end of class I ask the question, "Did anyone gain or loose any skill or knowledge from the belt they were wearing?"
You know the answer.

2. If I understood properly level 1 is taught the complete curriculum. Then level 2,3,&4 are once again taught completely through the curriculum again? If this is the case I can see how an individual will get extremely sharp by continually learning, & refining the system that many times over again.:asian:

That's exactly what we do through 5 levels. Another reason to de-emphasize belts. The material you learn is only limited by the level we choose to teach it, and not restricted to some esoteric and nebulous color. The 101 Course is not yellow material, it's just being taught at a yellow level. That very puposefully categorized knowledge and required skill while building significant foundation for subsequent levels.

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



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




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




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




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


Very interesting insight...

jb:asian:

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

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

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

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

When we want to play with techniques, we either create new ones or do technique lines :D

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

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

Yeah,

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

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

jb:asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo
Yeah,

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

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

jb:asian:

Comon JB, you make me blush. I mean as much as is possible. We'll get together again on "SubLevel Four Avenue." Thanks.:asian:

Originally posted by Doc
...to be specific, I find no value in them for our cirriculum whatsoever...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But from that perspective, the extensions take on a significance that allows a student to examine different conceptual ideas of motion and it’s timing. Taken from that model, it may very well serve a positive purpose for some students expanding their perception of motion. But once again, it depends upon the student and more importantly, the teacher.

I also believe some of the extensions are attached to the wrong teks and are in the wrong sequence. As they are- some of the more common versions to the extensions are dangerous to the executioner. It seems that the best lesson in them is useless Vs. unusefull Vs. useful.

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

:idea:

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

--Dave
:asian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Dave

:asian:

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

--Dave

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

Originally posted by Doc
That would be cool and I look forward to it. But I have one caution. It can be very addicting to have your questions answered satisfactorily, as well as physically demonstrated. I have a couple of black belts that followed me from the east coast to study after attending one of my seminars. One even brought his fiancé with him so he didn't have to go back. Although he brought sand to the beach, he's happy starting over in Kenpo. You can get "hooked.":asian:

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

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

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


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

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


--Dave

:asian:

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



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




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


--Dave

:asian:
Sounds like a plan, it's a date.

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

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

--Dave

:asian:

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

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

--Dave

:asian:

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

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

My st