Kenpo in the 21st Century

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Clyde: I actually spent a large percentage of my Kenpo career focusing on Kata, practicing kata, analyzing kata, teaching kata. I certainly have NOT gotten everything out of kata that is in there. I think there is much subtlety in timing, transition, etc. I do recognize that many of the techniques in the katas are different from the stand-alone techniques.

The kata/anti-kata debate is older than the Kenpo on the ground debate. Of course, there are many many non-fight related benefits to doing kata and not everyone does Kenpo to be a better fighter. My position is that Kata practice makes you good at Kata: at movement in the air, at dance performance, at moving meditation.

My point is that solo Kata practice is not the best way to learn technique application and to make the Kenpoist an effective fighter. Practicing Kata techniques against a resisting opponent makes you better at applying those techniques and makes you a better fighter. I wish I had spent more of my Kenpo Kata practice time doing bag work, practicing techniques against resisting opponents (instead of cooperating partners), and free-sparring. I wish I had spent less of my Kenpo time doing Kata in the air and in front of a mirror.

 

[Fastmover]

The best defense against the mount is avoiding it all together!! I have found once the mount is acheived the fight is 90% over for two reason mainly.

1. Your opponent is more skilled then you.

and/or

2. You are tired or hurt.

Some off the defenses that has been suggested here to escape the mount are extremely risky almost dangerous. Extending the arms and reaching out can and will get you into trouble. Not only does it set up the arm bar as previously suggested, but if I feel my opponents arms extended in any way, I like to push his arm to the inside across his chest and pin it between our bodies. If this were a real street fight this guy is going to have a very bad day because I have him cross checked, I mean while have two free hands to finsh him off with.

Another huge problem that will prevent you from simply throwing or pulling your opponent off from the mount is how they center their weight. I was taught not to center the weight 50/50 over the guys head underneath. Instead shift your weight 50/50 over the guys shoulder to set up a good ride. This is one of the things the Machados taught me at least.

100% of the Kenpo guys that I have rolled with do not control their elbows in the various positions on the ground. This is bad for them and makes my job a lot easier. Even though Kenpo teaches us to Anchor the Elbows, many in Kenpo do not grasp the importance of this idea on the ground for some reason. When you are underneath with a guy mounted, extending your arms away from your body in any way while probably get you into trouble, this would include doing Circling Fans against punches.

Just some thoughts

John

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Fastmover:

Right: Avoid getting under the mount! It is a lousy place to fight.

Right: People, including Kenpo people (I am a prime example) do not naturally control their elbows on the ground. This is a great example of where Kenpo principles work in Kenpoists heads but don't work against an opponent without practice applying the principles in a technique.

And...getting away from the Kenpo on the Ground debate and back to the topic of this thread...I believe that Kenpo should change to incorporate more effective ground defenses and shift focus toward more "alive" training methods both on the ground and standing up.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1) I'm numbering everything today.

2) Couldn't care less about commas, etc.

3) You needn't extend your arms to reach his on the ground, any more than standing up. If he's trying to choke, he's reaching in and leaning in (unless he's an orangutan..in which case you're dead meat anyway, so relax and enjoy it); if he's trying to punch, he's reaching in/leaning in to get at your face.

4) Yes, you need to break his balance. With the second, "fan," try kneeing him in the left kidney. Note: this will not work against Tank, but it gives you something to do while you're dying.

5) I agree that if he's sitting on your chest, you probably hit hard enough that you're in trouble. However and again, the initial claim was that kenpo is fundamentally useless, in its present form, on the ground--because it includes nothing of ground-fighting.

6) Just offhand, I can think of...seven...guys trained primarily in kenpo that you need to roll around on the ground with. None of them are me...but I can promise you that I won't get caught with my elbows sticking out. I still recollect the time Clyde and Jeff Kolowski got caught wrassling one sunny Saturday afternoon when the family walked in...heh, heh.

7) We are now arguing about whether or not the "traditional," kenpo stuff that is used on the ground will work or not. Well, that's progress.

Thanks.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

First of all one legged stances are transitional. Ever time we kick we stand on one leg which begs the question why kick so much but I digress.

I agree, thats why you kick low fast and hard. A quick to the inner thigh and or groin is the highest you should ever plan to kick. Kicking, while effective, can cause a lot of hurt for you if your timing is off even the slightest, simply because of the temporary lack of mobility.

I think you are reading too much into the word leap here; all you are doing is stepping off the line of attack while moving forward then you either pick up your leg to kick or continue moving forward and away from danger, or you swing your left leg behind you and become neutral to your opponent. At the risk of sounding like Clyde here, maybe you you don't know leaping crane well enough to decide its a bad technique.

Then we are in agreement that you would not want to leap to one leg. I've seen many people do this so don't take offence if your not doing it this way, but realize that the technique is called "Leaping Crane" and you will find that many people will actually leap to execute it.

As for the ground fighting thing; if I were on my back mounted I could do 5 swords (an example of Kenpo groundfighting) but that doesn't mean it will be effective or that it is even a safe tech to try and execute. Anybody can do a technique on the ground and say that kenpo teaches groundfighting, but that doesn't mean its a viable solution

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
1) I'm numbering everything today.

2) Couldn't care less about commas, etc.

3) You needn't extend your arms to reach his on the ground, any more than standing up. If he's trying to choke, he's reaching in and leaning in (unless he's an orangutan..in which case you're dead meat anyway, so relax and enjoy it); if he's trying to punch, he's reaching in/leaning in to get at your face.

4) Yes, you need to break his balance. With the second, "fan," try kneeing him in the left kidney. Note: this will not work against Tank, but it gives you something to do while you're dying.

5) I agree that if he's sitting on your chest, you probably hit hard enough that you're in trouble. However and again, the initial claim was that kenpo is fundamentally useless, in its present form, on the ground--because it includes nothing of ground-fighting.

6) Just offhand, I can think of...seven...guys trained primarily in kenpo that you need to roll around on the ground with. None of them are me...but I can promise you that I won't get caught with my elbows sticking out. I still recollect the time Clyde and Jeff Kolowski got caught wrassling one sunny Saturday afternoon when the family walked in...heh, heh.

7) We are now arguing about whether or not the "traditional," kenpo stuff that is used on the ground will work or not. Well, that's progress.

Thanks.

BJJ guys do not do your standard 2 handed choke while on the ground. Doing this will expose themselves for a counter. As far as leaning in to punch. I was mounted on someone, I would not haev to lean in to reach you. The person on top has the reach advantage, not the guy on the bottom.

Kneeing him in the kidney. All he has to do is move up on the bottom person, and he will be out of reach. Also, there are variations of the mount. Moving to the side, while still keeping one leg over the person, will remove the threat of the knee.

Read the post by Fastmover in the General section. Many good words of wisdom from EP!!

Mike

 

[MJS]

As for the ground fighting thing; if I were on my back mounted I could do 5 swords (an example of Kenpo groundfighting) but that doesn't mean it will be effective or that it is even a safe tech to try and execute. Anybody can do a technique on the ground and say that kenpo teaches groundfighting, but that doesn't mean its a viable solution [/B][/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly!! Thank You!!

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
I agree, thats why you kick low fast and hard. A quick to the inner thigh and or groin is the highest you should ever plan to kick. Kicking, while effective, can cause a lot of hurt for you if your timing is off even the slightest, simply because of the temporary lack of mobility.



Then we are in agreement that you would not want to leap to one leg. I've seen many people do this so don't take offence if your not doing it this way, but realize that the technique is called "Leaping Crane" and you will find that many people will actually leap to execute it.

As for the ground fighting thing; if I were on my back mounted I could do 5 swords (an example of Kenpo groundfighting) but that doesn't mean it will be effective or that it is even a safe tech to try and execute. Anybody can do a technique on the ground and say that kenpo teaches groundfighting, but that doesn't mean its a viable solution

Ok, I'm with you then. I thought I lost you there. I think my premis is that there is no such thing as the ideal phase of a technique. In a steril enviornment such as a class room, unrealistic mutations and just plain bad habits will develop. Unless your hand is off to the side on a counter top or just plain pointing to the right, an "and" is created trying to execute a rake to the ribs. We are in fact on the same page then.

 

[MJS]

Oh yes, we are on the same page!!

Mike

 

[Doc]

I've said this before, and it has yet to be negated. I can't say it
factually, though, because I haven't learned the entire system.

I was told, however that once you learn the rules, principles, and
most importantly flow of motion, and all of the concepts and
principles intended in kenpo, then all of those principles can be
seen in other styles and arts. And that one wouldn't have to
necessarily study a system to black belt in order to "bring into"
kenpo what you've learned.

I've heard that Frank Trejo has incorporated some serious sticky
hands stuff into their kenpo, for example. But AFAIK, he still
teaches the original curriculum, to teach you all that Mr Parker
wanted to teach.

I think what is necessary is to not think of “Kenpo” as a singular entity because it is not, nor has it ever been. What is the “original” curriculum to you I can guarantee, is not the same for me and many others as well.

I think it all boils down to your instructor and not your instuction. If you are continualy told that what you are studying is all you will ever need, chances are you are going to believe it. Rather than experiencing the vastness of information and eagerly trying soak it all in, it seems that all to many people are being fitted for a big ol' pair of blinders. Grapplers might try to grapple at the wrong situations but Kenpo guys should never choose an inapropriate range, position, or manuever, target, angle, and cover without "considering" the best course of action. Cross trainers see the similarities and it would seem that Kenpo guys don't want to see beyond their training floor.

Although that may be true in some cases, such sweeping generalities will not serve your argument. As far as “cross training,” that is a sport concept that has no place in a self-defense art. A true self-defense art utilizes many methodologies toward its ultimate goal. This is an old Chinese tradition. To “train” in one art while you are “training” in another suggests you have found a deficiency in one before you have learned enough to know if in fact that deficiency exists.

I look at it as the base techniques that are already established, the groupings according to the type of attack, and how they relate. From there, as others have already taught me, the possibilities are endless.

That is one way of looking at it, but once again I suggest you presume too much. What established base techniques? They changed often.

First off, the only justifications I've seen so far amount to a hill of cliches: "empty your cup," "We must expand and grow," "you should be prepared if...," etc. etc., yada yada.
How about this, alot of the older techniques suck and won't work or have severe weaknesses that should be addressed. If you would like to debate the physics behind I'm all ears.

Now that would be a truly productive discussion for a change.

Second--this "modernization?" Where's it end? First BJJ. Then--what? FMA for sticks? Kali for knives? Something else for guns? It doesn't look like modernization--or rather, it does: the sort of "modernization," that leads to, "planned obsolescence." You know, the endless discovery of new desires

What some call “modernization,” others call not learning what is already there. I tend to agree with the latter perspective.

This is directed towards everyone out there. How come everything is black or white? Neither of the extremes will be good for the system rather a balance between the traditionalist and expansionalist mindsets should be found.

It shouldn’t be. Traditionalist miss the point because everything must grow to avoid becoming obsolete or less relevant. However, “expanionalist” must recognize their own limitations and not presume they are qualified beyond their own personal use of the art to make “changes” for others.

Third: a philosophy resting on the discounting of other people's experience and a rewriting of the past. Some of us have repeatedly noted that we trained some of this, "new," stuff right in the old kenpo school; some of us have several times noted that the discussion of all this, "new," "more modern," "external," stuff is right in Mr. Parker's books, or in the sorts of stuff that folks like Larry Tatum are writing.

Quite true. Unfortunately the quality of teachers of the material of Larry’s stature are few.

Did Mr. Parker not try to incorporate a number of the ideas, concepts, and principles from other arts into his own. For example didn't he study judo? So if it was good enough for Parker why would it be sacrilege for the rest of us? Also if you think Larry Tatum is teaching BJJ in his school why don't you just run down to Jean Jacque Machado's place in Torrance. I'm sure he'll be accomodating.

It is not a matter of incorporating. The idea of “just adding” to your kenpo is a false one. Although BJJ has some excellent points, it is a competition art based on judo randori, and therefore as an entity is not compatible with what most feel is kenpo’s ultimate goal.

Fourth: the notion that somewhere out there is perfection. I insist it's a paranoiac notion--the attempt to fill all gaps, coded in contemporary capitalist terms. You know--more technology, shinier technology, that's the cure for everything. I simply don't expect to become a perfected fighter--don't want to, really. I'd like to become a better martial artist.

The true martial artist knows perfection is a false dream, but embrace instead the pursuit of perfection and in that process constantly improve their knowledge and skill. Of course we call that “continuing education.” Something some “traditonalists” seem to avoid, in favor of “honoring the tradition itself.” We all know what Parker said about “traditions” that limit growth.

Well I agree. I also don't think we'll ever know everything about our universe or the complex science that governs it, perhaps we should quit exploring and just accept our lowliness. Sounds like a great plan to me. Or wait, perhaps we could learn as much as we can during our journey so that we can pass it on to the next generation to help them with their journey. You know that whole stewardship thing.

That’s what I thought the idea was as well.

Fifth: way too much fascination with the idea of fighting and violence. (See Robert Smith's books.) Fundamental to all this modernizing talk are these ideas: a) the streets are so dangerous that you have to be prepared for anything anytime; b) you have to learn to inflict infinite damage, because the streets are filled with extraordinary fighters; c) it is impossible to talk your way out/avoid the trouble in the first place, d) strangers are the enemy.

As a person who “fights” with people for a living, and takes them places they don’t want to go, I find some martial artist (if taken at their word) are having waaay to many fights and life or death confrontations. At least a lot more than I do. Either they are not being honest, or there is something wrong with the singular common denominator in all those fights.

Sixth--who's going to "take charge," of all this modernization? I smell the Urge to Incorporate here, especially since the modernizers seem to really need to bring the Good News to us heathen. Seems to me like it's doing just fine without a large governing body trying to reign supreme.

That would kill Kenpo as most know it.

What it comes down to is this, in 2 generations no one will care what you, or I, or anyone else thought about the future of kenpo. "They" will, inevitabley, push in the direction of their choosing and there is nothing that can be done about it. Take comfort in the inevitability.

We have nothing to argue about there.

OK, fine.
First off, countering an indictment of cliches such as "empty your cup," with the claim that, "some of the techniques...suck," is hardly what I would call discussion of the issue. It has been my experience that the techs do NOT suck, our understanding/teaching/application of them often sucks. For example, I've seen and read a fair number of folks who run the techs and attacks in a dead fashion, complain that the attack is sterile and the tech dead, and then try to rewrite the tech to compensate for what was their problem in the first place.

Man that’s really the truth. It’s easier to blame the Kenpo than yourself or even more significantly, the lack of quality instruction.

Third, why exactly do I have to duplicate Mr. Parker's research? Generally, this is called, "reinventing the wheel," and though it is necessary to try and make sure that the particular wheel didn't need reinventing, it is also necessary to realize that the wheel's just fine as it is.

Agreed

As for Mr. Tatum teaching Machado jiu-jitsu--please re-read. This isn't even close to what I wrote. And my running down there so I can get my *** kicked, why would I go play on somebody else's turf, by their rules, and expect anything else? I might also note that my whole point was that I don't plan to be haring hither and yon...

We have had some grapplers want to play with us. The first thing they say is “here are the things you can’t do.” In general, they don’t train for combat, but instead to compete. And they do very well in their own venue. I suggest rather than Larry going there, they should go see him if they want to talk “combat.” Let’s use kenpo rules and there is only one rule in kenpo Combat.

The whole premise of this thread in my opinion seems to be whether Kenpo should evolve to meet the needs of the martial artist of the day. If history of Ed Parker tells us anything, change is inevitable simply because as individuals we should be constantly learning and growing. Mr. Parker did this so why shouldn’t we as well? Mr. Parker was Also open to outside opinion and thought and Im sure he was influenced by others point of view.

Quite correct, but once again “personal growth” is a separate issue from creating your own version of Kenpo (or any art) for other people.

A re we in Kenpo so arrogant to believe that we have all the answers and discount the perspective of others? Other opinions may enlighten our journey by providing a unique perspective.

Unique perspectives yes, however all information must be examined in the light of the overall concept of your Kenpo interpretation. Simple addition is not improving your kenpo but diluting it.

I do not believe that Kenpo as a system will ever consolidate into one governing body, nor do I believe it should. There is to many differing opinions and a varying need to tailor the process of learning the system that best fits all the individuals out there.

That is one interpretation that “tailors” to the individuals taste. All kenpo des not do that.

Everyone has an opinion, and within the martial arts we are all very passionate about it. Thankfully, there is an abundance of associations each with their own method of teaching principles of Kenpo. Some feel that the many splintered associations weakens Kenpo, I say it strengthens it. There is something out there for everyone and the uniqueness of each makes us all stronger.

It doesn’t make kenpo stronger, however it may support the individual in their own personal pursuit and preferences. However most Kenpo organizations have a shelf life of about 3-5 successful years before they begin to crumble. It’s always been that way, and is happening as we “speak.” J Parker lost people all the time, just as others are rapidly doing now.

I threw out a question earlier regarding the base of Kenpo. The techniques within the Web of knowledge are simply tools that help instill the principles and concepts within the individual. Change is interesting because if we follow the principles of Kenpo; again I refer to Mr Parker, there could be ways of changing the sequences in the techniques to solidify and economize a students rate of learning the principles of Kenpo. Principles are the base of our system in my opinion.

Most commercial kenpo has very few principles, but instead has a series of conceptual rules, along with any exception that you may tailor that works for you. Principles? I’m afraid some take that word way too literally with most teachers.

It’s the principles within Kenpo that act as a guide, that not only help me understand my motion within Kenpo, but the motion contained within other martial arts as well, BJJ in my personal case.

Remember all kenpo is not motion based. Hebler, LaBounty, Herring, Sullivan, German, etc do not do motion based kenpo.

I remember hearing how Bruce Lee would come to Ed Parker and even though Mr Parker may not have been familiar With the sequences that Lee was doing, he never the less could apply and explain the principles. Let be me clear that the principles do not change, the basics of physics for example are consistent, but our methods of explaining and the vehicles for understanding them should.

In Parker’s case that was true, but principles change when they are conceptually and philosophically driven in a different direction. Additionally, very little of Newtonian Physics translates to motion based kenpo, which despite all the “infinite” movement is still bound by anatomical constraints when maximum effectiveness is a goal.

Once Master Parker passed away, alot of people broke off and created new organizations. While he was alive, he was able to keep things the way he wanted to do them.

I’m afraid that was never true. It is myth that “Kenpo fell apart after Parker died.” In fact a significantly greater number of prominent people left during his martial arts life than after he passed away. Many stayed in his organization but had de facto left and only remained affiliated with Parker for rank and financial reasons, but really already “doing their own thing.” Some even had their own patch (with Parker’s approval) and never even used the I.K.K.A patch.

You could probably take 3 of his top students, ask them to perform and explain a tech. and you will no doubt get 3 very different responses.

..based on what he wanted to teach them as individuals.

Parker changed Kenpo even from the way he first learned it. He made it more up to date with todays times. In my opinion, the only way to keep an art growing and up to date, is with change. Sometimes the changes are for the better, sometimes they are not.
If adding a trapping movement from JKD or a grappling move from BJJ is the answer, then I see nothing wrong with doing it.

Addition is not “improving your kenpo.” Other arts approach things philosophically different. Mixing philosophies rarely if ever works. That why other arts (among other reasons) exist. They have a different approach or focus in their training. You can’t import information without an overall examination of how something may or may not fit within the overall system and its philosophical approach, and then determine how, when, and where the methodology should be placed for dissemination in context.

Several of the old IKKA club defenses were TESTED out. Mr. Mills had a club in his right hand, resting on his right shoulder. The guy who did the defenses was, I believe, a 5th at the time (wearing a lot of protective gear of course) and didn't stop the club once. All he had to do was shoot in a do the first block, and he was never able to do so.

I presume he was a Paul Mills 5th? I only say this because that would mean that Paul dictated the parameters of the assault as he saw it, and the student would go along. That scenario in my opinion is incorrect for the technique.

First, most don’t make a distinction between a “stick” and a “club” and that is an important place to make a distinction. One of the things that by definition describes a “club” is ..”an elongated cylindrical item that has such significant heft, that the weight itself is what transforms the object into an effective bludgeon.” Therefore a “stick” that could be “whipped” would not qualify. Further the attack would not start with the “club” on the shoulder. That would presume that he had to acquire it previously and walk to within range to attack you with it while at the “ready position.” While you of course observed with your thumb up your butt.

Anyway, in my attack scenario, the club/bludgeon is acquired from the ground first, and its required weight will cause the attacker to alter their body mechanics by necessity to raise it above their shoulders and propel it toward the intended victim with one arm. Once this action is committed, the weight of the bludgeon itself would preclude a change of trajectory or orbit. Lastly we practice with the bludgeon striking the floor with a significant follow through as the technique was designed and taught to me by Parker. Of course you must consider the level this technique is taught and the lessons you are attempting to impart to the beginning student. Once a realistic scenario is prescribed, students have no problem with this technique.

Those techniques are not “old” and any “test is only as good as the “realistic parameters” dictated for examination and evaluation. At least that is my point of view.

Gun defenses: How many of you that practice these techniques have ever actually fired a weapon? Probably a few, but the overwhelming majority has not. {DO not try this kids} The last time I was at the gun range, a friend of mine was nice enough to run a drill for me. Facing 12 o'clock he aimed his 9mm to about 1:30 and told me that he wouldn't fire until he saw me move (oh yeah, I didn't have ear protection on at the time). When I lunged in the flash, and concusive "boom" from the bullet leaving the barrel resulted in an extremely disoriented defense ( i.e. almost none at all). Now granted that was the first time I had ever done that, and with a little practice I could probably do a lot better, but my point is that the vast majority who have never had the gun go off by their head would probably react just like I did. Am I advocating that we all go deaf from gun training? No, but there is something to be said for a realistic understanding of what you're up against.

We visit the range regularly, and understand the necessity of realistic handgun training. We also train for rifles and shotguns, and semi-auto handguns held high and sideways “street style.” A significant number of my students carry firearms of ALL type on them and in their vehicles everyday professionally. I understand what you’re saying and I agree.

I met a man here in Spokane who trained in a style of Kenpo that broke away in the 60s. He actualy said to me that Mr parker had it toguether in the 60s but sort of lost touch with the reality of the street in the 70s.

Mr. Parker didn’t lose touch with the “reality of the streets,” but instead moved to commercial motion based kenpo for proliferation of a version of his art, which necessitated removing and/or leaving a considerable amount of information out of the conceptual design. Instead he shifted the responsibility to instructors who, for the most part, dropped the ball. Mostly because the students with no real world experience who came through the ranks ended up being its teachers. Trust me, Parker knew what reality was and continued to work on it. Don’t confuse what was taught in some of the schools with what Ed Parker himself actually would do, and did, in a confrontation.

Pehaps he has a point with some over-sophistication that may or may not be going on; however, I realized I was talking to a person that didn't even want to look at what Mr. Parker had been working on at the time of his death. His mind was made up and closed thank you very much. I listened to him bad mouth my school a little and politly left his studio.

Well apparently he had been around long enough so you might have listened to him. You never know what you might have learned. Obviously he survived.

In response, the first thing I'd write is this: give me an example of a technique, describe the attack, tell me why you think it doesn't work, and--if we know the same Parker techs--I can most likely tell you how to make the thing work fine. If not, I'll check with Clyde--who reamed myself and others today in class on just this issue...I can personally tell you that Glancing Salute, Clutching Feathers, Glancing Spear, Circling Fans, and Securing the Storm freakin' work.

Yes they do.

Moreover, it has been my experience that the folks who argue that "the technique doesn't work," are wrong. The way they do it doesn't work...and they (myself included) have a failure of imagination concerning figuring the damn thing out. It has also been my experience that some folks throw out chunks of the kenpo system on the grounds that they are outmoded or don't work, then turn about and claim that kenpo is missing all sorts of stuff.

The system is of a piece, folks. You throw out techs, forms, sets, you miss out on the way things are interconnected. Then, sure, things don't work right.

Funny, how the kenpo always seems to get the blame. But some seem to be quite happy where they are and do not feel a need to study Tae kwon dodo to “improve” their kenpo. Some need to take a long hard look at the guy taking their money and giving out those belts.

Evolving forward in Kenpo is a complex dilemma. I agree with Rob in that we Need to be careful how to proceed so that we are not changing for the sack of being different. At the same time I believe that we should not be bound by tradition and not do something because “that’s the way it is in the manual.” Mr. Parker was not a traditionalist and in fact he was a rebel of sorts within the martial art community. Even while he was still alive he was often criticized for adjusting the system through the years, some of the loudest came from within Kenpo itself.
Logic must be our guide as we train.

I couldn’t have said it better.

Any time someone grabs you, either by the hair, shirt, or head or arm lock, it is considered grappling....standing grappling. So, it does contain some form of grappling, just nothing on the ground.

Stop that! Stop extending your experiences with your teacher and kenpo to everybody else. Say you don’t do “nothing on the ground.” I thought we established the diversity of kenpo is as broad as it’s competent teachers?

Working a technique that avoids a grappling situation IS NOT GRAPPLING. Yes they can be effective against a grappler, but for the most part they teach that strikes can aid you in your grappling. Deciding that Ed Parker learned judo so you wouldn't have to is about the most rediculous thing I've heard in quite a while. Hey I got one of those philisophical questions. Would William James think you were better off doing an in depth study of grappling concepts?

So you suggest that when a person tries to grapple with you and you successfully prevent it, then you’re not grappling. Well that’s because you’re using a grappling philosophy/description in a Kenpo scenario. The idea that you’re not grappling unless you get down on the floor is misleading, however if you choose to use their definition that is fine but say so. But you can’t come to Kenpo and then define kenpo actions by what you do in another activity that is philosophically different from kenpo.

Further, what I wrote didn't have anything to do with learning or not learning judo. It had to do with the repeated claim that none of the stuff I've worked over years is in kenpo. It had to do with the repeated claim that Mr. Parker left kenpo somehow deeply flawed, incomplete, full of vulnerabilities, and that the way to handle this was to go learn all the other arts in which kenpo was deficient. I reject these claims, on grounds I've previously stated.

I reject them as well. What Parker DID do is leave some INSTRUCTORS “deeply flawed, incomplete, full of vulnerabilities” for various reasons, most of them at their own choosing.

Come on, guys. Those of us on these forums have about as much chance of competing on a professional level as the man in the moon. That isn't a reflection necessarily on what we study, or even how we study--it's just a recognition of reality.

And kenpo was never designed for any type of professional competition.

Ed Parker did leave Kenpo incomplete. He was constantly changing, growing, learning and being enlighted.

No more incomplete than any man has left any art incomplete in his lifetime.

It only stands to reason that as he did so that he incorporate this new found knowledge within his system of Kenpo. I learned many different variations to many of the techniques through the years. Mr. Parker himself had a way of changing things. All that I am saying that as I grow and mature as a martial artist, I too must incorporate my new found knowledge into everything I do as well.

That is good just don’t call it advancing Kenpo. Instead call it what it is, Your personal evolution of how you do things and a dilution or homogenization of your kenpo.

I have been training in Kenpo for 17 yrs. It however is not the only art I study. I go to the other arts to fill a void that Kenpo has.

There we go blaming the kenpo again. That’s not fair. All of us have not had the same kenpo experience as you thereforte your "holes" are not mine.

When Mr. Parker learned Kenpo in the 50's, few people knew Karate, few people knew Judo, nobody knew BJJ.

Clearly you make a distinction between “BJJ” as if it is somehow different form other grappling. It is not. It is however marketed quite well. “All fights go to the ground?’ No they don’t. The thing that separates or makes a distinction in grappling is not what it is called but, the rules used. The rules will alway dictate what it looks like.

There were boxers, wrestlers, and brawlers. Kenpo is effective against these types of attackers.

So Kenpo is effective against boxers, wrestlers, and “street” brawlers, but not BJJ? Well I’m glad to hear that because kenpo people in general don’t compete, and if they do they probably will be precluded from using kenpo techniques.

Since Mr. Parker learned Kenpo, Karate, Kung Fu, TKD, Kick-boxing and JKD grew rapidly. Mr. Parker added to and refined Kenpo in the 60's, 70's, and 80's until his death. Since his death, BJJ techniques have been combined with wrestling and kickboxing to create a new style of fighting usually known as MMA.
[/qute]

Sorry, bit that stuff has been around for more years than you’ve been alive. It is not new. Drop Gene LaBell a line and he’ll tell you stories about things before you were born.

A large portion of this debate can be boiled down to these questions: Does Kenpo adequately address the new positions, attacks and fighting styles that have emerged since Mr. Parker's death? Does it do so effectively? Does it do so in a superior way? Should it?

Yes on all counts. But I don’t consider a mount a “new position.” The first time I saw it was at recess by the schoolyard bully, who stopped using it when another kid smacked him across the head with a trashcan lid because he was fighting his friend.

Nature of Kenpo as an Art: This is an excellent question. I think it may be unanswerable and that is why there is more debate about Kenpo on this and other forums than any other forum. Is Kenpo "complete"? Is Kenpo a "Do" or a "Jutsu"? That is one reason why we are having this discussion.

Commercial kenpo is a “do” with the emphasis shifted to “your way” to be effective because it is “your” responsibility, and that is all that matters.

That is why there are so many Kenpo associations (well one reason anyway). That is why so many are trying to bridge Kenpo with other arts. That is why you and so many others are looking deeper into Kenpo.

Obviously that is not a bad thing.

b) Teachability: Another excellent question. No easy answers, but if Kenpo can be taught, and these other arts can be taught, then why not Kenpo with other techniques?

c) Linking it all together: That hasn't happened yet. It may not happen without a genious as great as mr. Parker's.

Now you’re talking. Everybody since Bruce Lee thinks they can create their own art and “fix” kenpo. I suggest they be content with making it work for themselves first, then hopefully they won’t have enough time to teach.

Man surveillance is boring.

 

[Michael Billings]

... and he returns with a BANG!!!

Comprehensive, articulate, and appreciated answer ... (that and I happen to agree with it too.)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah...ah....I couldn't find anything to disagree with in Doc's post! I have nothing to say!

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Wow Doc: That was the longest post I have ever seen. All good stuff.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Doc




There we go blaming the kenpo again. That’s not fair. All of us have not had the same kenpo experience as you thereforte your "holes" are not mine.

I realize all of our experiences are different. But, Kenpo is Kenpo. Regardless, the fact remains that there is no ground grappling in Kenpo. If one person wants to do it and the next one does not, thats fine. I was just pointing out one of the things that it lacks!


Clearly you make a distinction between “BJJ” as if it is somehow different form other grappling. It is not. It is however marketed quite well. “All fights go to the ground?’ No they don’t. The thing that separates or makes a distinction in grappling is not what it is called but, the rules used. The rules will alway dictate what it looks like.

Never said all fights go to the ground. I'm disagreeing with some that are saying that NO fight ever goes to the ground.


So Kenpo is effective against boxers, wrestlers, and “street” brawlers, but not BJJ? Well I’m glad to hear that because kenpo people in general don’t compete, and if they do they probably will be precluded from using kenpo techniques.

It is very effective against other stand up arts. However, when you take the stand up fighter out of his world and into the grapplers, he'll most likely be a fish out of water, especially if they have no training on the ground. Also, alot of the BJJ fighters cross train in boxing and kicking, so therefore, if the Kenpo guy starts to strike, the BJJ fighter will most likely start to do the same.

Mike

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Doc: Your post excellently rebutted many of the major points made in this thread. Can you provide a short summary of your position on where Kenpo is/should be headed in the future? I'd love to hear your opinion.

 

[Fastmover]

"I presume he was a Paul Mills 5th? I only say this because that would mean that Paul dictated the parameters of the assault as he saw it, and the student would go along. That scenario in my opinion is incorrect for the technique."

Actually I was there during this demo and the defender was wearing a helmet and pads as protection. This individual; I wont say his name, was an advanced black who had trained personally under Mr Parker. He was chosen for this demo for this reason as he knew and performed the Parker techniques very well. There was no set up, just "im going to hit you and you defend."

As for the weapon used well does it really matter? It was a wooden stick and Mr Mills did swing hard enough to break the wooden club across the helmet.

I have seen seminars in the past were the instructor "dictated the parameters" to make a point, I was there during this demo sitting 10 feet away and it did not happen.

Just what I saw nothing else,

John

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

I presume he was a Paul Mills 5th? I only say this because that would mean that Paul dictated the parameters of the assault as he saw it, and the student would go along. That scenario in my opinion is incorrect for the technique.

Actually I believe he was either a direct student of Parker or a direct student of Conatser. Either way, he was dead set on making the techs work, which he could never do.

First, most don’t make a distinction between a “stick” and a “club” and that is an important place to make a distinction. One of the things that by definition describes a “club” is ..”an elongated cylindrical item that has such significant heft, that the weight itself is what transforms the object into an effective bludgeon.” Therefore a “stick” that could be “whipped” would not qualify.

Huh, so your saying that your techniques don't take into account the possible maneuverability of a hand held weapon?

Further the attack would not start with the “club” on the shoulder. That would presume that he had to acquire it previously and walk to within range to attack you with it while at the “ready position.” While you of course observed with your thumb up your butt.

There is a difference between situational awareness and clairvoyance. The idea of total situational awareness is a myth, events can and will unfold without your previous knowledge. I would much rather know how to function in this high stress environment than pray that he has to do what you describe next.

Anyway, in my attack scenario, the club/bludgeon is acquired from the ground first, and its required weight will cause the attacker to alter their body mechanics by necessity to raise it above their shoulders and propel it toward the intended victim with one arm.

at this point your attacker has done everything but send out a memo stating his malicious intent. Most people are cheap shot artists, why? Cause it works. The element of surprise can be a powerful tool, train for that.

It is not a matter of incorporating. The idea of “just adding” to your kenpo is a false one. Although BJJ has some excellent points, it is a competition art based on judo randori, and therefore as an entity is not compatible with what most feel is kenpo’s ultimate goal.

Perhaps you would be so kind to enlighten us all as to kenpo's ultimate goal. So BJJ pratictioners have NO fighting ability? interesting, on the whole they seem to be in better shape and have a far greater understanding of opponent control than the kenpo guys (obviously there are exceptions but not many). Also I don't think that the simple addition of a handful of techniques is the answer, rather the mindset and training methodologies are where the true value is.

Additionally, very little of Newtonian Physics translates to motion based kenpo, which despite all the “infinite” movement is still bound by anatomical constraints when maximum effectiveness is a goal.

Why don't you name one aspect that ISN'T bound by anatomical contraints? To say that your SCIENCE isn't bound by anatomical constraints is to suggest that you could attack without your body.


Happy 4th everybody.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Doc,
your talk of instructors dropping the ball is exactly what we "evolutionists" are talking about. Sure everything is in kenpo but is every instructor and every student up to the task of making kenpo work on the ground or in the ring against one of those bad *** Muay Thai fighters? You said it your self... "no."
That being the case, I see nothing wrong with rising above the human imperfections that arise and taking a look at what the specialists are doing.

 

[Doc]

Unfortunately, when Parked died, the Kenpo world exploded. What I mean by this, is that, Parker was able to keep order and decide what and how the material was to be taught. Now look at it. Everybody has their own way of teaching, doing things, etc. Will there ever be one person to take control? Probably not.

That is absolutely incorrect. Parker had only a moderate amount of influence on the majority of his teachers, to the extent they themselves wanted to be promoted. The individual instructor has always interpreted the commercial art. Parker would look at what they were doing and make suggestions, but NEVER gave a definitive way to do ANYTHING. If it worked for them and didn’t violate any major ideas (and sometimes even if they did), it didn’t matter. It had to work for the individual as its paramount objective. All of these differences existed while he was alive. I find it curious that after he passed away some thought it would change somehow. That was the secret to his overall commercial success. Instructor and student flexibility that was counter to the prevailing “traditionalism’ of the day.

Kenpo as an art. It is an excellent art, but it lacks certain things, which have been made apparent.

In your experience, which I might add, is NOT universal.

As far as NHB goes. It was the intention of the Gracie family to pit one art against another to see the weaknesses.

Although I am not an expert on the intentions of the individual members of the Gracie Family, with all due respect, it was obviously their goal was to make their concept of competition grappling popular and lucrative. They created and owned the U.F.C. venue. They picked and paired the fighters and adjusted the rules in their favor, and gave themselves the prize money when they “won.” After 5 events they sold the U.F.C. for 14 million. As the idea grew and the rules were once again adjusted, along with they no longer having control of their opponents, they became less successful. Make no mistake the Gracie’s are good at what they do, but that includes marketing.

I have trouble with the notion that NHB events were some big wake-up call. In the first place, judo and Gene LeBell were around long before...in the second, guess what I learned from the so-called NHB events? Don't get in a cage with some big guy who likes to fight, is in better shape than you can ever be (unless you drop everything else in your life), and is almost certainly more physically-talented than you are. (And just incidentally--everybody knows that professional fighters almost always pay a horrific physical price later in life, right?)

Bravo. The operative word here is “professional.” Kenpo was designed for everyday people to learn to defend themselves against common situations that might befall most people. This idea you’re training to “shootfight” the “Hulk” is ridiculous. Neither are you preparing for this Filipino knife/stick master who is a JKD Guru in his off hours. In my experience truly skilled martial artist rarely have confrontations, and even more rarely, with each other. Repeat after me, “THERE ARE NO NINJA’S HIDING IN THE PARKING LOT.” There are however bad people that will rob you if you don’t pay attention. TWO men attacked one of my black belts wives, recently in a super market parking lot. She fought them off and survived with a bruise. She doesn’t study the art. Good thing they weren’t BJJ guys I guess. Their superior “fighting” skill coupled with them hiding behind every Parker car would have doomed her.

I still want to know how you go about teaching students. Just tell them, well, go here, go here and go here?
I still want to understand the logic of eliminating all sorts of stuff from kenpo, then saying that there's stuff missing from kenpo.
I also still find it interesting that some posters write that they learned more about Angles of Cancellation on the ground, for example, then turn about and say that groundwork isn't anywhere in kenpo. I find it even more interesting that, despite my several mentions of grappling techniques, there's still an insistence that some of us "purists," won't realize that a fight involves grappling.
And just to open up a real can of worms--sometimes techniques aren't getting taught "differently," which is not what "tailoring," meant anyway. Sometimes, they're getting taught wrong.

I wish I had said that one too.

Some of the Concepts that should be avoided:

-maneuvering through a twist stance at any point during your self defense (culprit- several of the brown belt techniques).

-the idea of leaping to one leg while blocking an attack and performing an inward strike to whatever target you so chose ( don't want to alienate anyone now..) (take a guess)

-the idea of doing an overhead cross block against an incoming club.

-Triggered salute (the way that most people do it.)

-almost all of the two man defenses (there is no way that a prescribed technique will work against multiple attackers). Everyone argues the point that BJJ doesn't work against multiple attackers, well I'm not too sure that kenpo will PREPARE you to fight multiple attackers either.

Funny we wear the twist stances out in our realistic scenarios with no detrimental effect. And yes my students and I do know realism when we see it.

Your “one leg” comment suggests to me that you are always on two feet, and that is a physical impossibility (unless you are a statue.

Our cross block works just fine. Perhaps it is your methodology and realistic(?) approach that has you mistaken in your assessment.

I am curious how you would begin the preparation to teach a multiple person encounter without a study model. Enlighten me please.

most of the gun techniques, for the simple reason that guns have changed over the last several years. You use to be able grab the cylinder, or stop the firing pin by obstructing the hammer, or even grabbing the slide. None of that will work on a Glock, unless you can jam your finger through the ejection port in the fraction of a second that it's open. Besides this, the barrel tends to fly all around the clock face before the final disarm (not good for any of us)

Well this is true, and the GOOD teachers will address that in their interpretations.

-How many of the knife defenses take into account the idea of backcutting (using a reverse path of motion)?

Course # 202 number 13 is one example. It’s called “Returning Lance” in our curriculum.

-With EP's background in Judo I'm surprised that no one ever questioned the purpose or intent of a grab or hold? Surely the intent of an attacker is not to simply grab you and hold on but to disrupt and control your balance either by maneuvering and striking (very cool drill Capt...) or simply throwing you. Especially the techniques from behind. Odds are if they are going to tackle, throw, or lift you off the ground from behind, you're going to be toast before you realize what's happening.

That is your experience. My beginning students will tell you those issues are addressed in our curriculum.

Another good point about take downs did anyone see the M.L. baseball game where the pitcher did a double leg takedown on a charging batter (ok..... slightly charging batter) followed by a punch to the face. I'm pretty sure he's never had bjj training.

Am I trying to say that these are all my thoughts and ideas? No. In most cases I was shown why this wouldn't work, but in some cases I was able to figure things out for myself using simple logic and physics. I don't have all the answers, but before there are answers there are always questions.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts, even if you don't agree.

Well, this is an easy one because I do agree with you. But as I’ve stated before, I don’t take it for granted that I’m the only one smart enough to recognize deficiencies in SOME teaching. But make no mistake everyone doesn’t mirror your experiences. You were shown why things don’t work, and then began to attempt to figure them out. The guy that showed you why they don’t work should have also “fixed” them for you. My teacher did.

Hmm, I'm glad I don't train with your instructor, I'm more inclined to teach people how the technique will work instead of how it won't. I've addressed all these issues at one time or another in the past 3 months and how to deal with them, in fact, I addressed alot of them last Saturday.

See? I agree. Everyone isn’t having that negative experience. Some are actually addressing the “problems.” Others never see the “problems” because they are taught correctly in the first place. What a concept!

Instead of vast amounts of time learning BJJ, we should be learining and using Kenpo techniques to negate and counter these attatcks, not add them to our artillary.

Wow, you just gave the gist of my next article in Martial Arts Magazine. Obviously I agree with that and am working on a companion article for the “Asian Arts Journal.”

In my opinion, the changes that are needed (if any) will only come when one strong leader emerges.

Maybe closer study into what Mr. Parker was going to do with the system may be needed.

I don’t believe in the “one strong leader” idea. I think people should be able to follow and train in a manner they feel comfortable with. As far as effectiveness, that will be a judgment by, and for the individual according to their needs.

I remember going to tournaments in the 70's and 80's and seeing top-ranked competitors do new techniques in Kata, Kumite, and Self-Defense-demonstration divisions. We'd take the techniques back and try-em. If they worked, we'd keep 'em. If they didn't, we didn't. To me, the early UFC and NHB competition are like tournaments 15 and 30 years ago. We had a chance to see different techniques and how they worked against each other. A lot of people started to learn BJJ because of the early UFC's. Eventually, Kickboxers started to learn enough BJJ to defend themselves and enough stand-up grappling so that they couldn't get taken down and could continue to kickbox. Now, many kickboxers can defend against a takedown and defend themselves on the ground so that they can stay on their feet and do what they do best. Shouldn't Kenpo people be doing the same? Shouldn't we learn from these top-ranked competitors?

Stop making sense, it ruins the thread.

"I also still find it interesting that some posters write that they learned more about Angles of Cancellation on the ground, for example, then turn about and say that groundwork isn't anywhere in kenpo. I find it even more interesting that, despite my several mentions of grappling techniques, there's still an insistence that some of us "purists," won't realize that a fight involves grappling."

Perhaps if they were to read what they wrote, they might take it back. (or not)

Well lets see I havnt seen were anyone else has mentioned Angles Of Cancellation so I assume you are refering to me. It would help if you identify who you are refering to. NEVER did I say that there is no ground work within Kenpo. Maybe your misunderstanding me so let me try and clear it up. There are NO formal ground techniques within EPAK; however, the concepts, principles, and theories of Kenpo can be applied on the ground.

You know when you, on one hand acknowledge the great diversity and interpretation of kenpo by its many teachers, than make a flat all encompassing statement without any qualifications, it makes me wonder. I hate to keep saying it but please refer to YOUR experiences and ASK questions of others if you truly are trying to learn what others are or are not doing.

Maybe you would like to share which techniques you are doing on the ground?

Thanks for asking. Course # 203 technique number 15 is one example. It is called “Pinning the Bear.”

Also you and Clyde seem to imply that since everyone is doing something different, then they must be doing the material wrong.

My reading comprehension is decent and I don’t believe anyone said that. I can tell you emphatically that what Mr. O’Briant and others are doing is “different’ than I, but by no means does that make it “wrong” and especially if it’s working. The proof is in the pudding. No matter what personal philosophy a teacher has, they cannot condemn someone who gets the job done in a different manner. I believe that is why all these different style names exist. I don’t do “Shotokan” or “tae kwon dodo” but if a guy knocks someone out with a straight punch from a low “zenkutsu dachi” or a high “reverse hooking kick" while slowing destroying his hip flexor, I’m not going to tell him he’s wrong.

I hope that this is not what your elluding to because that would be pretty arrogant on your part. Clyde if Im not mistaken your old instructor is Vic Laroux and since he and Mr. Sullivan developed the IKCA, they do things pretty different compared to traditional EPAK. Are they doing Kenpo wrong as well?

My opinion, nope.

Robert, lets explore something that you yourself brought up. You mentioned knife defenses and their abilty to defend against the back cut, yet no were within Mr. Parkers manuals does it speak about the back cut.

If you are depending on those commercial manuals for answers, no wonder you have questions. They were created originally to present ideas of attack and general defense to “instructors” to give some sense of similarity to the many interpretations. Ideas, and nothing more. Never were they designed to give you solutions. The also were not made for lower students, but they asked for them and ultimately provided a revunue stream for instructors. They tell you “what” not “how” and the really difficult things are not even included. The “how” comes from a competent teacher.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Fastmover
"I presume he was a Paul Mills 5th? I only say this because that would mean that Paul dictated the parameters of the assault as he saw it, and the student would go along. That scenario in my opinion is incorrect for the technique."

As for the weapon used well does it really matter? It was a wooden stick and Mr Mills did swing hard enough to break the wooden club across the helmet.

Well with all due respect, yes it does. Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again. Clearly if he broke the "stick" than it wasn't significant enough to rise to the level of the definition of a true "club."

If you are so tied to your position you are unwilling or unable to see the possibilities of what I'm saying, than meaningful discussion stops at this point on this subject.

If I put the correct object in your hand, and you are committed to hiting as hard as you can, and begin to do so, than .....

At any rate I suggest more examination rather than declaring a technique "old" or something. here are actually some people on this forum who have been around awhile who have some pretty good expereinces. perhaps they can present another point of view as well. Learn as much as you can, but be logically open minded.