kenpo3631
Black Belt
Can you give an explanation?:asian:
Can you give an explanation?:asian:
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Yes, I strongly beleive in my views, however I am NOT locked into them. If someone can explain to me why they are doing it and it is sound, logical and follows the rules of the Art then I will consider adopting those views or at least examine their point further.
I ask you this, why can you not give me an explanation on this forum? Do you not have the answer? You did after all have the priveledge of studying with the SGM, were you not privy to that information? Is it because you don't know? They were very simple questions Mr. C. I would hope you would have something to expound upon.
So once again I will ask, if you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not? If you drop Aggressive Twins you lose that. Do you learn it in Alternating Maces? where else would you learn this concept? what other technique teaches it?
I am sure that these are some of the more menial questions you have been asked in you tenure as a kenpoist. I look forward to your veiws.
:asian:
kenpo3631
Black Belt
That was very enlightening, and educational. I had heard allot of what you stated before. This just solidifies my convictions that what I was told before was correct. Thanks again Mr. Chapel
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Well after reading what Mr. Chapel said, I will further examine the "invention" of Alternating Maces. I must say that talking with many, although not as many as you, that "hearsay" and "incorrect" information isn't so "incorrect"....but hey! maybe they lied to me
As far as someone being the "last word" on anything...I heard Mr. Parker refer to that person as "the only man that can argue with me point for point about the theories and principle of Kenpo" also "a walking encyclopedia of Kenpo". Hmmm, maybe Mr. Parker was just feeding an ego?
Point well taken. For you a level playing field - I have many versions. However I don't think that question #1, #3 & #4 require you to know if what version I have of Alternating Maces.
1) If you close the centerline with hands, somewhere there has to be a technique that shows the same principle with the feet should there not?
2)Do you learn it in Alternating Maces?
3)Where else would you learn this concept?
4)What other technique teaches it?
Not at all. I just did not understand why you could not have given the information like Mr. Chapel did on the forum. Thanks again Mr. Chapel
I saw him as much as I could when I could. Not the same as being a personal student but I gained much from my meeting with him. Sadly, Mr. Parker passed away the year before I tested for my black belt.
Did I offend you? If I did, I apologize. Frustrated...not at all. I am very happy with my training and my trainer. Actually I am quite intellegent as are you. "Whatever the attitude so is the response"... I like this one better..."Perception is reality until proven otherwise" So seeing you responded but have not yet answered my questions...:idunno:
How would you hurt my feelings? Like I stated in a previous post: If someone can explain to me why they are doing it and it is sound, logical and follows the rules of the Art then I will consider adopting those views or at least examine their point further.
You learn handsword, then you learn footsword (knife edge kick)...isn't that the same thing? You used your hand then you used your foot... Why would it not make sense while doing the self defense techniques. I thought we applied what we learned as basics to what we did in the self defense techniques? No? Yes?
To answer my questions as stated above you don't need to know what version of Alternating Maces I know.
:asian:
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Closing access to the opponents centerline
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Bill,
Why run when you can fly
Why run when you can fly
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Cause you dont have wings!
Bah dum..dis
In a Blackhawk Helo. I'll have plenty of time come December...Active Duty Bosnia
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Originally posted by WilliamTLear
Leaping Crane does. Or did I miss something?
Hasta,
Billy Lear
Yeah but that works the centerline from behind your opponent. What about from the front?
kenpo3631
Black Belt
Correct. In Attacking Mace you close the centerline with your left inward block and regain control of the ceterline with the right punch to the rib cage. In Aggressive Twin you close it (centerline) with the right inward block and regain control of it with the right knife edge kick. All from working the front of the body. Leaping Crane, as Billy stated works the centerline from your opponents obscure zone.
So the begginer is learning how to regain control of the centerline with the either the hands or the feet. You here allot of "motion kenpo" people say "what you do with your hands, you can do with your feet". So if you don't show them Aggressive Twins don't you lose a piece of the kenpo puzzle? Another question that could be asked is "Was the technique (Aggressive Twins) designed to teach that concept?":asian:
that's how I learned it...
for the first time....
yesterday.
LOL.
for the first time....
yesterday.
LOL.
this is the only #2 yellow technique I've ever learned. Was there a different one? If so, what?
Doc -
hmmm... I'm not quite sure what "motion kenpo" is other than that it tends to refer to most of the kenpo out there that isn't taught by Dr. Chapel... who teaches sub level 4, and from reading his posts, I have a very general idea of what that is... but if someone doesn't agree with "motion kenpo" and isn't sl4, and they still do kenpo, what are they?!
respectfully,
nightingale
hmmm... I'm not quite sure what "motion kenpo" is other than that it tends to refer to most of the kenpo out there that isn't taught by Dr. Chapel... who teaches sub level 4, and from reading his posts, I have a very general idea of what that is... but if someone doesn't agree with "motion kenpo" and isn't sl4, and they still do kenpo, what are they?!
respectfully,
nightingale
Doc said: QUOTE: However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company. /quote
I guess I didn't phrase my question right, or I didn't understand your answer...
if these seniors don't go for the motion kenpo thing, and they don't do sub-level 4, what is it that they do?
I guess I didn't phrase my question right, or I didn't understand your answer...
if these seniors don't go for the motion kenpo thing, and they don't do sub-level 4, what is it that they do?
Doc
Senior Master
There are a number of issues surrounding the first ten (10) techniques and how they fit into the rest of the lesson plan. Consider these comments from my own knowledge:
Initially the lesson plan began with 32 techniques leading to an Orange Belt. The sheer volume of the information before a first promotion was daunting to all but the serious and hearty students of the day. This was not initially unusual because the majority of students were adult physical males, who might be involved in other physical activities like boxing, judo, or even football before coming to, or concurrent with their Kenpo training.
As the seventies ushered in, the phenomena of females and younger students began to invade the schools, and it was discovered the curriculum was out of line with the capabilities of a large percentage of the schools students of the time. (This also prompted the placement of the belt knot to help instructors recognize gender in the studio). Younger and less physical students became discouraged and dropped out for other less demanding activities or began to gravitate toward the new tae kwon do invasion.
In an effort to maintain enrollments, Tom Kelley* (my sp) suggested the creation of a preliminary rank before Orange to encourage younger students and females to enroll and once a student, to stay. This was the Yellow Belt. So you see, before you began to suggest this level has some special relationship to the rest of the lesson plan, it is important you realize it was initially an afterthought or add on, and not a part of the overall technique structure in the beginning at all.
Parker accepted the idea and the number of techniques arbitrarily decided upon reflected whom the chart was slanted toward. The techniques were supposed to be relatively easy, teach some needed skills, and there were only ten of them. The techniques wee created by primarily Ed Parker, Tom Kelley*, and Richard Planas with substantial input from many others. A true collaborative effort for the most part but actaully a project led by Tom Kelley.*
Once the Yellow was created, adult males began to literally whine" (as Parker put it) because they were ineligible for a Yellow Belt. Ultimately Ed Parker acquiesced to requests from students and instructors alike, and allowed the Yellow Chart to be taught to everyone.
Once adult participation was substantial, it became obvious the techniques, although generally effective, were out of line with the expected skill level and the basics taught at that level. For that reason techniques like Aggressive Twins, which led with a knife-edge kick to the knee, was eliminated and replaced with Alternating Maces.
Jim Mitchell has been mistakenly attributed to the creation of Alternating Maces because he was the first to place the Yellow Techniques on video (with Parker behind the camera). It is a fact that in the early days many were first exposed or learned the techniques from video footage of Jim Mitchell. I have footage of Parker executing all of the newly created techniques from the seventies, but he never filmed or videoed the yellow.
The original version of Alternating Maces was created by Ed Parker, but was interpreted by Jim Mitchell on video using the motion concepts Ed Parker was teaching at the time. This also accounts for the discrepancies in the written lesson plan, that suggest you collapse on the arms after you deflect them away.
When Parker demonstrated the technique, he came over the top and struck downward on the arms and Slap-checked (like he always did) before he punched. Jim Mitchell chose to deflect the arms misunderstanding the inward block, and used a positional check that Parker never used. Ultimately Parker let the Mitchell version stand, otherwise he would have had to re-do a great many of the techniques Mitchell interpreted on the video. He didnt like Mitchells form and even planned to re-shoot volume 2 of Infinite Insights because of his displeasure with his stances.
The video version of these techniques existed prior to the formal manual. In fact, although the techniques were listed in "workbooks" in the schools, they were not formally written down. I'm sure many remember those old "workbooks" that students left in the school that contained all of the requirements for their next ranlk. They were color coded small booklets that also included such things as "blocking cordination drills." (Remember D?)There were actually four techniques (4) techniques that were removed/changed/renamed, and all had the potential to be effective, depending on the teacher. Specifically Aggressive Twins is VERY effective when skillfully executed properly.
In our own curriculum I have added an additional six (6) techniques to balance the curriculum to sixteen (16) and to fill some holes I perceived to be in the first level of instruction.
*The extra e is for excellence in a man I seriously respect. :asian:
Initially the lesson plan began with 32 techniques leading to an Orange Belt. The sheer volume of the information before a first promotion was daunting to all but the serious and hearty students of the day. This was not initially unusual because the majority of students were adult physical males, who might be involved in other physical activities like boxing, judo, or even football before coming to, or concurrent with their Kenpo training.
As the seventies ushered in, the phenomena of females and younger students began to invade the schools, and it was discovered the curriculum was out of line with the capabilities of a large percentage of the schools students of the time. (This also prompted the placement of the belt knot to help instructors recognize gender in the studio). Younger and less physical students became discouraged and dropped out for other less demanding activities or began to gravitate toward the new tae kwon do invasion.
In an effort to maintain enrollments, Tom Kelley* (my sp) suggested the creation of a preliminary rank before Orange to encourage younger students and females to enroll and once a student, to stay. This was the Yellow Belt. So you see, before you began to suggest this level has some special relationship to the rest of the lesson plan, it is important you realize it was initially an afterthought or add on, and not a part of the overall technique structure in the beginning at all.
Parker accepted the idea and the number of techniques arbitrarily decided upon reflected whom the chart was slanted toward. The techniques were supposed to be relatively easy, teach some needed skills, and there were only ten of them. The techniques wee created by primarily Ed Parker, Tom Kelley*, and Richard Planas with substantial input from many others. A true collaborative effort for the most part but actaully a project led by Tom Kelley.*
Once the Yellow was created, adult males began to literally whine" (as Parker put it) because they were ineligible for a Yellow Belt. Ultimately Ed Parker acquiesced to requests from students and instructors alike, and allowed the Yellow Chart to be taught to everyone.
Once adult participation was substantial, it became obvious the techniques, although generally effective, were out of line with the expected skill level and the basics taught at that level. For that reason techniques like Aggressive Twins, which led with a knife-edge kick to the knee, was eliminated and replaced with Alternating Maces.
Jim Mitchell has been mistakenly attributed to the creation of Alternating Maces because he was the first to place the Yellow Techniques on video (with Parker behind the camera). It is a fact that in the early days many were first exposed or learned the techniques from video footage of Jim Mitchell. I have footage of Parker executing all of the newly created techniques from the seventies, but he never filmed or videoed the yellow.
The original version of Alternating Maces was created by Ed Parker, but was interpreted by Jim Mitchell on video using the motion concepts Ed Parker was teaching at the time. This also accounts for the discrepancies in the written lesson plan, that suggest you collapse on the arms after you deflect them away.
When Parker demonstrated the technique, he came over the top and struck downward on the arms and Slap-checked (like he always did) before he punched. Jim Mitchell chose to deflect the arms misunderstanding the inward block, and used a positional check that Parker never used. Ultimately Parker let the Mitchell version stand, otherwise he would have had to re-do a great many of the techniques Mitchell interpreted on the video. He didnt like Mitchells form and even planned to re-shoot volume 2 of Infinite Insights because of his displeasure with his stances.
The video version of these techniques existed prior to the formal manual. In fact, although the techniques were listed in "workbooks" in the schools, they were not formally written down. I'm sure many remember those old "workbooks" that students left in the school that contained all of the requirements for their next ranlk. They were color coded small booklets that also included such things as "blocking cordination drills." (Remember D?)There were actually four techniques (4) techniques that were removed/changed/renamed, and all had the potential to be effective, depending on the teacher. Specifically Aggressive Twins is VERY effective when skillfully executed properly.
In our own curriculum I have added an additional six (6) techniques to balance the curriculum to sixteen (16) and to fill some holes I perceived to be in the first level of instruction.
*The extra e is for excellence in a man I seriously respect. :asian:
Doc
Senior Master
This is what we use. All of them work as written and you cannot advance until you prove it with a passing score of 85% in all areas.
1. SWORD AND HAMMER: (flank CLOSE left hand shoulder grab)
2. ALTERNATING MACES: (front - two-hand attempted push)
3. SWORD OF DESTRUCTION: (front - left step through roundhouse punch)
4. THRUSTING SALUTE: (Front right step through kick)
5. CAPTURED TWIGS: (rear - bear hug with arms pinned above elbows)
8. GRASP OF DEATH: (left flank - right arm braced headlock)
7. CHECKING THE STORM: (Front right step-through overhead club)
6. MACE OF AGGRESSION: (front -- two-hand lapel grab -- pulling in)
9. ATTACKING MACE: (front - right step through straight punch to face)
10. DELAYED SWORD: (front - right hand lapel grab)
11. SWORD OF DOOM: (front - right straight punch to the face)
12. DESTRUCTIVE SHIELD - front - left push to the right shoulder
13. ESCAPING TALON: (Flank - left Seize of the right wrist)
14. HUGGING DEFIANCE: (Front - hug arms free)
15. DOUBLE MACES: (front - step through right and crossing left punches)
16. GRASP IN THE DARK: (Rear, left stiff arm shoulder grab to the left shoulder)
Doc
Senior Master
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Before it gets too deep, a simple reminder.
I am the last word on nothing but my own curriculum, and I consistedly remind everyone that I don't execute or teach Kenpo as most everyone else does. So I don't pretend to tell anyone how to do or teach their interpretation of the art anymore than they tell me. In fact I know the Kenpo seniors do not agree with me and I'm fine with that.
However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company.
I only promote thought as I, and everyone else should, and it does not bother me if anyone rejects my view for their own, that's only normal. However we must also remember that everyone who ever studied with Ed Parker throughtout his lifetime did not neccessarily learn or do the same as most everyone else does now. I know Chuck Sullivan doesn't, and neither does Dave Hebler, James Ibrao, Steve Hearring, or even Steve LaBounty. So I'm not alone, and I think I'm in dam good company.
Just remember MOST of the people in American Kenpo do a newer version Ed Parker created so more could learn it. You can't pretend he never did or taught anything else. Just do it, enjoy it, and be happy.
Before it gets too deep, a simple reminder.
I am the last word on nothing but my own curriculum, and I consistedly remind everyone that I don't execute or teach Kenpo as most everyone else does. So I don't pretend to tell anyone how to do or teach their interpretation of the art anymore than they tell me. In fact I know the Kenpo seniors do not agree with me and I'm fine with that.
However most of those active seniors are not my senior. Most of those guys are from the late sixties and early seventies. The earlier Senior, Seniors as I call them and the few who are my senior, however do not "disagree" with me. They simply see a different point of view as was common. Most of them do not share the new "motion" philosophy either so I'm in good company.
I only promote thought as I, and everyone else should, and it does not bother me if anyone rejects my view for their own, that's only normal. However we must also remember that everyone who ever studied with Ed Parker throughtout his lifetime did not neccessarily learn or do the same as most everyone else does now. I know Chuck Sullivan doesn't, and neither does Dave Hebler, James Ibrao, Steve Hearring, or even Steve LaBounty. So I'm not alone, and I think I'm in dam good company.
Just remember MOST of the people in American Kenpo do a newer version Ed Parker created so more could learn it. You can't pretend he never did or taught anything else. Just do it, enjoy it, and be happy.
Doc
Senior Master
I didn't think you were. it just seemed like a good time to break the flow, bro.
Doc
Senior Master
If the Kenpo you study is based primarily on a study of "motion," that is what you are studying and it is an Ed Parker creation. The fact you may not agree with the term that Ed Parker himself used is of no consequence. You may in fact call it anything you want, or not. It's like a person intoxicated insisting he's sober. Protestations do not alter reality, but in this case it's only a word that doesn't enhance or degrade you or what you do, and it just is. "Motion" is the word Ed Parker used and there are some that have been around who remember him using it. After all I think it's pretty hard to pick up any of his (later seventies) writings where the word doesn't dominate almost every paragraph.
There's at least one person (not you) with rare "reading comprehension skills" who thinks my bringing to light information about the study materials is a "put down" of Mr. Parker. To the contrary I feel I'm reminding people Ed Parker was much more knowledgeable than motion-kenpo represents. It's funny how people like to assume they know all Parker knew, otherwise they wouldn't be offended.
He was the most brilliant man I ever knew and I've hung with some "heavies." But if some "brainy" individual thinks Infinite Insight is the totality of his knowledge, if they think motion-kenpo is the sum of his physical works, If they think it has to be in the Infinite Insights to be real, then they are grossly mistaken.
The first group of instructors had skills beyond Motion-Kenpo because they were "converts" from other systems. They implemented the "lesson plan" well, supplementing it with other skills and knowledge. So there is a tendancy among more recent "students turned teachers" to make motion-kenpo more than what it really is, because it is the sum of "their" expereince.
Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant "piece" of his work. Designed so it can be studied at many levels according to the students commitment. But it's inherent weakness is it's only a "lesson plan" and is absolutely driven by the quality of its instructors. And it's designed to be flexible to handle the lowest commitment students and not turn people away like in the old days when classes were only for the hearty males. If you get a good teacher with a broader experience of the arts you're in good shape. If not, well good luck. Many of it's "teachers" are now a product of the "lesson Plan" itself, making it as Parker often stated , ".... an entity feeding upon itself."
This also imposes an artificial ceiling and by default precludes ascendancy to higher levels by not providing the "bridge" to less conceptual study and applications. However it did/does serve its purpose and has allowed many all over the world to sample the brilliance of a man who left us way too soon. But he had so much more. It's important we don't pretend that those few manuals and concepts was all he had to offer. That would be unfortunate. What he gave and put into motion-kenpo was only a "slice" of the very large Ed Parker Pie.
Doc
Senior Master
Well, Steve Herring (Frank Trejo's instructor,) and James Ibrao are much closer to what the "Old Man" was doing when he began studying with Chinese Masters and they teach essentially "Chinese Kenpo." Steve Herring understands the basis for SL-4 and we get along fine. I do not know Mr. Ibrao personally.
Chuck Sullivan is a combination, taking his earlier knowledge, some "motion" kenpo concepts and created his own functional version of very effective American Kenpo.
Dave Hebler is closer to what Parker transitioned to when he began to formulate the basis for American Kenpo pre-motion, but he never forgot his earlier teachings and he examined the "motion" stuff as well. In other words he continued to educate himself and is one of the best around. A Senior, Senior and my senior who you don't hear much of that you should. He's one of the best and he and I have no conflicts and he likes what I gleened from my lessons and I his.
Sigung Steve LaBounty is "old school" as well. Essentially teaching a mixure of what Parker was doing in the beginning, plus the Chinese influence, with direct very destructive action. But he also has continued to educate himself delving into Traditional Chinese Medicine as we speak.
Dave German took his early Kenpo and branched on his own getting deep into the manipulation side in conjunction with other diverse material making his own art devestating. And he's been doing that since the sixties.
Danny Inosanto does more kenpo than you know, but hangs his hat on Kali and JKD for obvious reasons.
My point is none of these Senior Senior do motion-kenpo, and you'll find most of my Kenpo disagreements come from people who weren't around before motion-kenpo whose entire experience comes essentially from that motion concept. You won't find any of these Senior, Senior people complaining about what "Kenpo doesn't have." That's because they've seen it all at one time or another and they know better. The seniors who disagree, are not my seniors, they are yours.
What they call their art is irrelevent, the point is it isn't motion and they make no apologies for their knowledge. Neither do I. I'm only responsible for what I know, not what others don't. Give Ed Parker the credit for all of us, motion or not.
