Snaking Talon

[Seabrook]

No sir, I do not. What most call Kicking Set 2 would be for us Kicking Set 3. Mr. Parker included a simple "Elementary Kicking Set 1" that existed before the first kick set, so-called "Orange Kicking Set." We never stopped using it, and it is perfect for a beginner. These are the two kick sets we use. (Elementary & Orange called 1 & 2 for us).

Although I am not 100% sure, now that you've brought it up, the first time I heard of that set was when it was demonstrated by Jim Mitchell on that video, (hated it) and I haven't seen it since. It is entirely possible he came up with that one as well. I know he was working on all of the "number 2" sets for Mr. Parker in San Diego and put them on the video. I'll have to do a search of my memory banks, and review the video for a definitive answer on its creation.

We don't do any of the Jim Mitchell "2" sets. That particular set is Anatomically contradictory.

I look forward to meeting you one day sir,

Thanks for jogging the creeping "oldtimers" syndrome.

Mr. Chapel,

A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.

About sets - Lee Wedlake and Huk Planas state in their 201 book that the Kenpo sets are Star Block Set, Finger Set, Two Man Set, Coordination Set, and Kicking Set. Kicking Set 2 (as well as Stance Set 1 & 2, Striking Set 1 & 2, Coordination Set 2, Finger Set 2, Staff Set, Form 7 and 8) were all approved my Mr. Parker although he didn't require everyone to learn and teach them.

I teach all of the sets but am interested in the why's of those that don't. Like I said, even though we haven't met, I've got tremendous respect for your abilities and knowledge, and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

 

[Doc]

Mr. Chapel,

A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.

About sets - Lee Wedlake and Huk Planas state in their 201 book that the Kenpo sets are Star Block Set, Finger Set, Two Man Set, Coordination Set, and Kicking Set. Kicking Set 2 (as well as Stance Set 1 & 2, Striking Set 1 & 2, Coordination Set 2, Finger Set 2, Staff Set, Form 7 and 8) were all approved my Mr. Parker although he didn't require everyone to learn and teach them.

I teach all of the sets but am interested in the why's of those that don't. Like I said, even though we haven't met, I've got tremendous respect for your abilities and knowledge, and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com

I haven't forgotten you sir. Give me a moment to give you a decent reply.

 

[Doc]

Mr. Chapel,

A couple of things. Your right - even though Mr. Parker had the set listed in Volume 5 of the Infinite Insights series, I find that many Kenpo associations don't teach it. And to be honest, those that do, I have yet to see someone perform it very well. That's interesting about Kicking Set 2 being anatomically contradictory.

About sets - Lee Wedlake and Huk Planas state in their 201 book that the Kenpo sets are Star Block Set, Finger Set, Two Man Set, Coordination Set, and Kicking Set. Kicking Set 2 (as well as Stance Set 1 & 2, Striking Set 1 & 2, Coordination Set 2, Finger Set 2, Staff Set, Form 7 and 8) were all approved my Mr. Parker although he didn't require everyone to learn and teach them.

I teach all of the sets but am interested in the why's of those that don't. Like I said, even though we haven't met, I've got tremendous respect for your abilities and knowledge, and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Jamie Seabrook

Well sir, although I have a tremendous amount of respect for Huk, he does come to the table with a considerable preference for some of the material he helped to create. Of course, this plays out in his being very knowledgeable of that information as well. Not unlike my own position with regard to the anatomical interpretation of essentially the same material.

Most of the “twos” were created as “busy work” to flesh the curriculum much later in the late seventies, and even into the early eighties. Most of it never caught on with teachers who never learned it, or by this late in the game, didn’t want them, and some rejected them because they knew where they came from.

Most, who bought into these things, opted for the “extensions”, “clubs”, and “knives” over sets that didn’t appear to offer much more than their singular counterpoints.

Although Parker had started work on more “useful” sets, he never completed any of them, instead giving students what they wanted in weapons and tournament competition vehicles.

The majority of these are not used in our curriculum because they are anatomically incorrect and instead are based on “motion” as its central theme. Something I was taught to avoid as “mindless” exploration. Obviously as a stand-alone component, it is a different story. However in comparison, the more detailed oriented and functional anatomy based method is much more effective and skills, once learned, are permanent producing internal energy for a lifetime.

If you have specific questions I will be more than happy to answer you sir.

 

[pete]

Dr. Chapel,

i fail to see how 'motion' would the central theme of Stance Set 2. in my most humble opinion, this is all about developing anotomical structure. yes, its true that the stances used in this set are found throughout the numbered forms, but just as Stance Set 1 isolates the stances, Stance Set 2 does so with more advanced stances to teach balance, centering, rootedness, and stability. under the watchful eye of a knowledgeable instructor, a student can be corrected to feel the proper alignment of each stance and go on to apply them throught the system.

is this possibly an exception to your statement? if not, please explain why this particular set, Stance Set 2, would be 'mindless exploration' and/or 'anotomically incorrect'... thanks~

pete.

 

[Doc]

Dr. Chapel,

i fail to see how 'motion' would the central theme of Stance Set 2. in my most humble opinion, this is all about developing anotomical structure. yes, its true that the stances used in this set are found throughout the numbered forms, but just as Stance Set 1 isolates the stances, Stance Set 2 does so with more advanced stances to teach balance, centering, rootedness, and stability. under the watchful eye of a knowledgeable instructor, a student can be corrected to feel the proper alignment of each stance and go on to apply them throught the system.

is this possibly an exception to your statement? if not, please explain why this particular set, Stance Set 2, would be 'mindless exploration' and/or 'anotomically incorrect'... thanks~

pete.

First as a point of information there as been at various times at least three different stance sets. The original stance set was depicted in Mr. Parker's second book finished in 1962, "Secrets of Chinese Karate." Than another weas created later to take its place when the commercial system was born. This second set was followed up much later by the infamous "two." (Three in our curriculum becasue of the existence of another structure creating "Elementary Stance Set" Mr. Parker approved.)

The only exception to the "conceptual motion" rule was the first set not included in the motion kenpo curriculum, and even then only if taught properly.

Structural integrity is a subjective term and relative in motion kenpo. In comparison none of the curiculum is structurally sound because none of the proper body mechanics are taught that support the proper execution thereof.

This is particularly true in stances, which as you know, form the foundation for essentionally everything. The entire curriculum of which you speak is based on getting practitioners "moving" or in motion and is the central theme for everything. Structural integrity is never addressed, and I have proved that for many years now with various highly accomplished well known motion kenpo instructors. They all failed.

Many realizing this have defected or at a minimum, have found it necessary to study other arts that grapple to compensate for the inevitibility of structure collapse which usually results in becoming unitentionally horizontal.

Stances are easily challenged. Simply have someone push you at the shoulders with the intent to move you across the floor in the direction of the stances intended structural stability. If you move, it is not present. If you can hold your ground without contorting your body, then that stance for that jiffy-second in time has found structure. The key is to maintain it in all you do, as you perform whatever function is called for.

Thanks Pete.

 

[Soulman]

Dr Chapel,
I am interested in what you describe as your "Elementary Kicking Set".

Would you mind sharing with us what the differences are between the two sets, (Elementary#1 and Orange#2) or maybe even give an outline of how to execute your kicking-set-1?

I currently study the EPAK-24 system - would "my" Kick-set#1 be at all related to what you teach as your kicking-set#2?

Thanks,
Soulman

 

[Doc]

Dr Chapel,
I am interested in what you describe as your "Elementary Kicking Set".

Would you mind sharing with us what the differences are between the two sets, (Elementary#1 and Orange#2) or maybe even give an outline of how to execute your kicking-set-1?

I currently study the EPAK-24 system - would "my" Kick-set#1 be at all related to what you teach as your kicking-set#2?

Thanks,
Soulman

Kick Set 1 is a simple four sided set that allows the teaching of sophisticated structural mechanisms and their transitions, and provides the base of all kicks utilized in the first chart course (yellow - 101). Additionally it also forms the base for additional basic hand mechanisms that also create structural integrity and provides experience in their proper use, and can include at a later time what is commonly seen in basic sparring activities. It only has essentially two kicks, a front kick and a roundhouse but explores all of the many relationships and combinations of these kicks inconjunction with proper hand positions and the variatious relationship combinations possible front and rear and the associated footwork and stances to achieve structural goals. On its face, it appears very simple however proper execution is more difficult than imagined when all mechanisms must be adhered to, to form a sound physical foundational base for the curriculum and continued structural integrity. A classic example of what Mr. parker often called, "Sophisticated simplicity."

 

[parkerkarate]

This is my first thread - so I hope to get some good input!

I am looking to see what other applications are being taught for this technique to make it more practical and efficent.

The traditional technique starts out with your right hand looping in a figure eight to defend against a front 2 hand push (I find the figure eight to be time consuming). I have tried to vary the initial block with a two handed inward parry, but you now are grabbing the wrong hand, which defeats pulling your opponent off-center for the kick.

Next your right hand pulls down on opponets right wrist while we perform right front snap kick - (no issues on this one) -

After kick the technique calls for moving into front twist stance to set up for the two rear kicks (reverse chicken kick). I find that once we start the twist and attempt to perform first rear left back kick - you are now opening yourself to 1) blind technique and 2) potentially making yourself vulnerable in the twist (i.e. cross yourself up).

My best attempt with the kicks is to strike the knee with the first - thus dropping your opponents body and delivering the second kick to the ribs.

I would appreciate any insight and your comments.

Very interesting.
At the begging try to do a left inward parry once you strart looping you right hand like a snake (thus snaking talon.) This will make his arms cross, which will make the technique both easier and quicker. For the rear chicken kick, after you do the front cross over reverse, spin around as usual with your left hand up checking your face. But as you are spinning make shore your right fore arm is checking the opponents right arm. So you will have to let go for a split second. Once you have spun like in the end of Circling Windmills, if you know that technique yet, you check his right arm with the palm of you left hand to make shore he is still there. Than fallow through with your rear chicken kick.
Hopefully that makes sence and helps.

Salute,
David