Parker/Tracy 32/24/16 Technique curriculum history

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Most of us are familiar with the basic history of the American Kenpo techniques curiculum: it "started" with a curriculum of 32 techniques per belt (5 Kyus, Orange through Brown), Mr. Parker introduced the 24 Technique curriculum (8 Kyus Yellow through 1st Brown), and Mr. Duffy created the 16 Technique curriculum shortly before Mr. Parker's passing.

Can someone tell me when the 24 Technique system was officially rolled out?

Also, I understand that the Tracy's had a 40-technique per belt curriculum in the mid-60's before introducing the yellow belt and developing their current 600 technique curriculum.

Can someone tell me when the 40-technique system was first rolled out? Can someone tell me when the current system was first rolled out?

Also, were there any other curriculums in Parker/Tracy systems in the interim?

I am curious because my Kenpo branch is based on the 40 technique system.

 

[Michael Billings]

I believe did the 24 technique manual, if I am not mistaken ... and I may be? I am curious about the chronology and editor also.:asian:

 

[kenpoevolution]

Apparently the 40-technique system was introduced in 1962 by the Tracy Brothers.

A 30 technqiue system was introduced in 1966 when the yellow belt rank was added.

( visit http://www.georgiakenpo.net/belt_history/orange_history.htm for more information)

 

[True2Kenpo]

Fellow Kenpoists,

I am curious as well to the origins of some of the curriculums...

I also wanted to add that there is also a 15 technique per level curriculum that I believe most W.K.K.A. schools teach.

What other variations exist?

My thought is as long as everything is there, the setup does not matter. I have heard many times from other Kenpoists that if you are not teaching a certain way that it is not right... the point is that what is right for one person, may not be right for another.

I think the 16 tech. levels and the 15 tech. levels work really well for schools, especially for teaching kids. It helps spread the material out alittle better for students to have more time to focus on lesser techniques, but in the end still recieve all of the information.

In anycase, wish everyone the best. Good journey!

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer

 

[tarabos]

the wkka does follow a modified technique cirriculum (poorly modified if you ask me), but it does not follow a 15 technique cirriculum.

 

[dcence]

Currently, in the AKKI, the official curriculum uses a tiered approach recognize the more advanced you are the more you should be able to learn and retain. For example, there are 10 in Yellow, 16 in Orange and Purple, 20 in Blue and Green, 30 in Brown (altogether including all three levels, or 10 per level), etc.

I know some instructors choose to just do 16 per level after yellow, which is no problem in the AKKI.

Just another spin on things.

 

[Doc]

Mr. Duffy created the 16 Technique curriculum shortly before Mr. Parker's passing.

Correction please:

Brian Duffy created "A" 16 technique curriculum, not 'THE' 16 technique curriculum.

There were several versions, and I myself was using a 16 technique curriculum in the seventies. In fact, in my study with Parker I NEVER used a 32 curriculum because I was not teaching commercially.

Additionally, to my knowledge Parker himself created and introduced the 24. In my conversations with him, his ultimate intent was to cut the 32 in half, but settled on the 24 as an intermediate "stop gap" for "5 years" to avoid the triggering of premature promotions in the commercial schools.

Remember all of this was a "business" model first and the martial art curriculum was actually secondary. "Elongation" of the process was important. Most in the 50's got their blacks in months rather than years.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Kenpo evolution, Doc: Thanks!

 

[True2Kenpo]

Originally posted by tarabos
the wkka does follow a modified technique cirriculum (poorly modified if you ask me), but it does not follow a 15 technique cirriculum.

Tarabos,

Good afternoon sir. You mentioned the W.K.K.A. does not follow a 15 technique curriculum. I just wanted to ask what curriculum they do follow?

Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Kenpo evolution, Doc: Thanks!

You know, I am one of the guys who keeps insisting we stop speaking of "Kenpo" as if it has all undergone the same evolution and essentially is the same for everyone with only "variations" in techniques. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is absolute for some is not for others based on many factors.

Ed Parker himself when asked about a technique by a student would always respond by asking, "Show me how YOU do it." Even back in the day when techniques didn't have names. It was always about making it work. An attitude he brought with him from Chow.

When a teaching methodology began to form and long term goals began to be more solidified as his personal art evolved, more of a "system" began to be the core, but the length, depth, and breath of that system varies from individual to individual taught by Parker. It depended on what you learned before you met him, what you wanted to do with it, were you in business with him, did you work for him, your own personal capabilities physically and intellectually, was there a financial consideration (paying for instruction), what, when, and how long someone actually studied, etc. And one other thing that was really mportant; did he like you, but don't think business considerations didn't play a major role.

Many people all going in different directions at different points in time and location dominated by the most recent commercial group of teachers and students by design.

Very few people were actually taught by Parker from beginner to black because he recognized he could never spread his art that way. Most of those on the tree came to Parker from other arts and/or instructors and the majority were already black belts because that fit his business model.

 

[meni]

Originally posted by True2Kenpo
Tarabos,

Good afternoon sir. You mentioned the W.K.K.A. does not follow a 15 technique curriculum. I just wanted to ask what curriculum they do follow?

Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer

with all the respect

I’m currently a student of Mr. Joe Palanzo Head of the W.K.K.A and as a member of his school and a student of his
I would like to inform you that we do follow the 15 technique curriculum and it pretty good thank you very much

M

 

[meni]

Originally posted by tarabos
the wkka does follow a modified technique cirriculum (poorly modified if you ask me), but it does not follow a 15 technique cirriculum.

tarabos :
Please view the above answer!

 

[tarabos]

Originally posted by meni
tarabos :
Please view the above answer!

if you have a listing of this cirriculum then i'd like to see how it is set up. i am a student of Mark Lawler and we do not use a 15 tech cirriculum...

seems we follow different cirriculums which strikes me as odd since we technically are a wkka school, though not many of us are members of the org.

if the cirriculum has changed i'd like to know and then ask Mr. Lawler why we have not adopted it.

 

[Daishi]

I'll put money down that the 15 technique set that the WKKA is now using is the same list that Tarabos is refering to, but bumped alot of the required techniques down to optionals. That seems to be the WKKA way of changing the lists, just move stuff around as optionals.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Can someone tell me when the 24 Technique system was officially rolled out?

1979

artyon:

 

[meni]

Originally posted by tarabos
if you have a listing of this cirriculum then i'd like to see how it is set up. i am a student of Mark Lawler and we do not use a 15 tech cirriculum...

seems we follow different cirriculums which strikes me as odd since we technically are a wkka school, though not many of us are members of the org.

if the cirriculum has changed i'd like to know and then ask Mr. Lawler why we have not adopted it.

you can view the list at
http://www.pcwood.com/kenpo/fulllist_tech.html

i hope this is helpfull

let me know if there are any major changes!

m

 

[meni]

Originally posted by Daishi
I'll put money down that the 15 technique set that the WKKA is now using is the same list that Tarabos is refering to, but bumped alot of the required techniques down to optionals. That seems to be the WKKA way of changing the lists, just move stuff around as optionals.

i dont have any idea what change when and to where but for last to years i can tell that technique change it place and at list in Mr.Palanzo place we still do the same!

m

 

[tarabos]

Originally posted by meni
i dont have any idea what change when and to where but for last to years i can tell that technique change it place and at list in Mr.Palanzo place we still do the same!

m

ok...here's the deal. you have the wkka list, and in it are the "required" techs and the "optional" techs. we are aware of the fact that there are "optionals," but we teach them all...they are all required. hence the techs are still present and there are more than 15 techs per list.

however, this also results in a sporatic number of techniques per list, so you cannnot classify the list we teach as either 15, 24 or 32.

now if you DO NOT teach the "optionals," for whatever reason, then voila, you have a 15 technique cirriculum.

maybe there are a lot of people here wondering why some techs are optional. i wouldn't have an answer for them. this has always been one of my problems in my 11 years of working with the list. if you want some specifics of why i do not prefer the wkka cirriculum i will list a few, but not all.

for one, the "optional" thing. many of the techniques that were made "optional" are techniques that i feel are very valuable teaching tools and just plain great techniques. not to mention there are techniques that have been made "optional" that are included in the forms. why would you not try and concentrate on those techniques a little more to learn the actual application of them and improve on that technique as well as the form it is in.

another problem i have is that the original yellow belt list and all of its techniques have been totally eliminated in most wkka schools, mine included. there are some valuable techniques in that list that are much better for introducing a new student to kenpo. look at some of the techniques on the yellow belt list for the wkka. there are some fairly complex techniques on it. why would you introduce a new student to kenpo with these? i had to take it upon myself to learn the original yellow techniques.

these are some of my opinions. you may enjoy the cirriculum and that's great, i'm glad you do, but i've never been a fan of it.

 

[meni]

Originally posted by tarabos
ok...here's the deal. you have the wkka list, and in it are the "required" techs and the "optional" techs. we are aware of the fact that there are "optionals," but we teach them all...they are all required. hence the techs are still present and there are more than 15 techs per list.

however, this also results in a sporatic number of techniques per list, so you cannnot classify the list we teach as either 15, 24 or 32.

now if you DO NOT teach the "optionals," for whatever reason, then voila, you have a 15 technique cirriculum.

maybe there are a lot of people here wondering why some techs are optional. i wouldn't have an answer for them. this has always been one of my problems in my 11 years of working with the list. if you want some specifics of why i do not prefer the wkka cirriculum i will list a few, but not all.

for one, the "optional" thing. many of the techniques that were made "optional" are techniques that i feel are very valuable teaching tools and just plain great techniques. not to mention there are techniques that have been made "optional" that are included in the forms. why would you not try and concentrate on those techniques a little more to learn the actual application of them and improve on that technique as well as the form it is in.

another problem i have is that the original yellow belt list and all of its techniques have been totally eliminated in most wkka schools, mine included. there are some valuable techniques in that list that are much better for introducing a new student to kenpo. look at some of the techniques on the yellow belt list for the wkka. there are some fairly complex techniques on it. why would you introduce a new student to kenpo with these? i had to take it upon myself to learn the original yellow techniques.

these are some of my opinions. you may enjoy the cirriculum and that's great, i'm glad you do, but i've never been a fan of it.

Hi again
1. As far as I know 15 technique curriculums mean only 15 techniques are required to advance for next level between your white until you reach 5 degree bb which completes the system so
I believe that if one is going to see all the techniques, one for sure is going to have some time to see the optional technique however as most of as know there are so many techniques that it hard enough to keep track as it is, I'm sure the more time that I will spend on doing learning and practicing I will remember techniques better

2. About better les complex or not in my opinion the collection of ten techniques for the first level is well rounded
You have kick. Choke, grab, push, stepping of line, regrabing,
And with all the respect some of the original technique (which is now in optional section) are not simple at all ,like intellectual departure
For example,
There for I'm quit happy with the way things are.
M

 

[tarabos]

we could debate this all day and not make any progress. i am happy to call it a difference of opinion...