You need to ask "what if" like ras...or you suck

[Chris Parker]

Yes.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?

Oh, and one other thing... how exactly do you define "paradigm"?

The above question assumes that there is a such thing as Ideal Phase techniques...and that said IP technique has a singular universal expression to it.

This is a common misconception that many Kenpoists have. There is no such thing as a univesal Ideal Phase Technique.

The Ideal Phase is actually and properly called The Ideal Phase Analytical Technique PROCESS. The purpose of this process to select a common streetfight scenario that a instructor or instructors wish to analyze and successfully resolve using Kenpo techniques concepts and principles. This process is strongly urged to be viewed in 3 ways:

1. The What If Phase

2. The Formulation Phase

3. The Equation Formula


So there are no actual legitimate basis for a universal IP expression.

The expression that has reached great uniformity and is the most popular expression of any Ideal Phase expression is the result of powerful kenpo businessmen collectively promoting a single expression in order to more easily regularize Kenpo expressions...despite Mr. Parker's wishes to the contrary.


Sword and Hammer--and every other Ideal Phase "technique"--is drawn from an OUTLINE that loosely SUGGESTED an approach to be used in a manual called Big Red. They were not meant to be fully fleshed out combat model seqeunces...by design. This manual was initially designed FOR INSTRUCTORS NOT STUDENTS and its purpose was to teach instructors how to form...wait for it...THEIR OWN Ideal Phase expressions for their own schools and groups. Mr. Parker always wanted Kenpoists to think and express themselves independently, according to my interpretation of his work and the testimonials I've read of those who knew him.

This means that the instructors were supposed to practice and experiment with the techniques, develope a functional response of their own, teach said response to the students of their organization, and then watch their particular group's IP expression evolve among their particular group or organization etc. None of that happened. Instead, brain dead early generation Kenpo black belts simply copied the outline provided in Big Red...even when it didn't make sense...and passed it on to their students. Their students as a general rule mindlessly copied what they'd been shown because they wanted to advance to the next belt rank. And then the process was made even worse when the business decision was made--not by Mr. Parker--to sell Big Red to students. The overwhelming percentage of students [ of course ] are vastly underequipped to grasp materials that are advanced conceptual models for Master Rank instructors...but nobody cared about that. They wanted to get paid.

The lessons, their applicability, etc etc to be learned is a journey that each student must embark upon and discover on their own. Their instructor can guide them, but should not and cannot do the work FOR them. That means that I would learn something different in my journey exploring [ whatever IP sequence ] than would any other person. However, I believe that the common starting point common medium and common goal also lends a consistent commonality to any and every person learning [ whatever IP sequence ]...but that's my opinion.

 

[Chris Parker]

Personally, I think you're a bit out in your interpretation (I think Doc is rather more on the money), but more to the point, that didn't answer my question. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?

I'll explain why I'm asking.

The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.

The above I've read from you before, and honestly, it doesn't really say anything.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Personally, I think you're a bit out in your interpretation (I think Doc is rather more on the money), but more to the point, that didn't answer my question. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?

I'll explain why I'm asking.

The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.

The above I've read from you before, and honestly, it doesn't really say anything.

I answered the question:

"

Originally Posted by Chris Parker Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?


The answer I gave you is complete simple and direct.

 

[ATACX GYM]

. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?

I'll explain why I'm asking.

The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.

I translate the above to a series of questions:

1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?

2. If you don't think it's functional, why?

3. If Ed Parker wanted

4. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person?

5. Did you--Ras--have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?


Would these five questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?

 

[ATACX GYM]

I don't know exactly what happened but THIS is the post I meant to write.

. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is? If you don't think it's functional, why, if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person, is it done the way it is? How is it written in Big Red, for instance?

I'll explain why I'm asking.

The way you address things seems to completely ignore the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons, and that those reasons are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training. So I'm trying to get at whether or not you actually have enough understanding of why they are done the way they are before you decided that you knew better.

I translate the above to a series of questions:

1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?

2. If you don't think it's functional, why?

3 Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person?

4. Did you--Ras--consider the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons?

5. Did you--Ras--consider that the specific reasons for these techniques are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training?
6
. Ras, did you have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?


Would these questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?

 

[Chris Parker]

I answered the question:

"

Originally Posted by Chris Parker Why are the IP techniques taught and structured the way they are, if you feel that they are not well designed? Why, for instance, is Sword and Hammer designed the way it is?


The answer I gave you is complete simple and direct.

No, it wasn't. It was answering a different question entirely, and in a far from simple and direct fashion.

I translate the above to a series of questions:

Not really...

1. Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is?

Sword and Hammer was taken as representative, not particular. It was mentioned as it provides a common basis for comparison. But what I'm looking at is the reason it is structured the way it is.

2. If you don't think it's functional, why?

No, I have your reasons for that. And, as listed, I disagree, and feel that you don't understand it well enough (which is where this line of questioning is coming from).

3 Why is Sword and Hammer done the way it is if Ed Parker wanted everything to be ultimately functional and individual to each person?

As Doc has said, that's not the actual aim that Ed Parker had. In fact, it was only the mid-level blacks that should be looking at the "what if" question, and only the master-level ones who should be formulating. There's a big difference between being able to adapt the methods to a personal body-type, or change in situation, and abandoning it to create what you think is "functional", as if you try that too early you either don't have enough experience to understand what "functional" really is (or what realistic really is), or you're just going to go about making stuff up that might or might not be the art itself, leading to a dilution of Kempo as it has been created.

But again, to the point, the question is more asking why is it structured the way it is, not why isn't it something else.

4. Did you--Ras--consider the possibility that the techniques are done in a certain way for specific reasons?

Ah, now we're getting to it.

5. Did you--Ras--consider that the specific reasons for these techniques are linked into the position they have in the development of the students training?

That's another part of it.

6. Ras, did you have any idea of why the techniques are done in a certain way and the reasons behind their arrangement in that certain way before you decided that you knew better?

There we go.

Would these questions be an accurate reflection of the questions you wish answered?

The last couple are more what I'm asking.

 

[Yondanchris]

Did you continue to teach them while believing they were flawed? Did you believe they perhaps had potential that you simply had not yet grasped, and so still had faith in them? Did you recognize them as flawed after you began looking around, and was that realization what lead you to break away?

If you knew they were flawed and yet continued to teach them, what was your reasons for doing so?

At first I thought I was seeing the forest for the trees, but then after some real life confrontations (security) that ended well I realized it was the spontaneous formulation that saved my bacon and not the individual techniques. A few years later I came to understand that I was teaching a limited system (if you could call it a system) and that better techniques, methods, and paradigms where called for. That's when I was on the search for training in American Kenpo. Because of this continued training I am blending the systems together with my faith and "creating" Christian Kempo, taking methods-principles-and paradigms and applying them to my current knowledge.

 

[Yondanchris]

As someone who has trained with Prof. Ras on a few occasions, I will say this:

Ras is someone who has training in the martial arts, although some of which I cannot verify. But back in the day some of the SKK beaters such as Cerio, Parker, and others had little to no official studio time and lots of “hands on” experience. I would not want to face Prof. Ras on the street!

My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does.

I can clearly see several aspects of his training that we should appreciate and consider on our own:

1. Contact Resistance Method (live attacks, weapons to targets, punching through not to target)

2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: “quality over quantity”. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training.

3. Tailoring: Ras has adapted his training for his own needs and purposes given all “individual” variables.

4. Evaluation of knowledge based on instant data not on theory or guesses: He keeps what works for him. This is expressed though the argument over the “ideal” phase of techniques.

5. Rock-Drop-Lock: His expression of a common theme in mixed martial arts and in other “traditional arts”. Tonight while on the web, I came across a video by Mr. Van Donk about Bujinkan Ninjitsu and the philosophy of technique and training:

“7 Principles of instant defense:
1. Awareness – Mind as protection
2. Distance your body safely
3. Commit yourself to action
4. Do multiple hits for each attack
5. Grab hold and destroy their balance
6. Take them down. Close the Gap
7. Finnish. Subdue or get away”

Some areas in which I can disagree and still be able to glean from his videos:

1. Terminology – Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page.

2. Ideal-what if- formulation – Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better “see it – drop it – keep it”.

3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado – Due to his position, training, heritage ect…Prof. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!

This is just my evaluation from some training time and watching the online conversations here on Martial Talk. This observation is entirely my personal view, no harm or offense was intended. “don’t shoot the messenger”. I hope that this will give a “lens” for those who read/watch Prof. Ras online and to be able to glean something valuable to add to their training.

Chris

 

[Twin Fist]

No one questions his physical skill. But he's clearly doesn't know what he its talking about when he opens his mouth.he knows how but has no clues why and that would bee ok if he was humble enough to shut up and learn what he doesn't know.but no. any critique its meet with more **** talk challenges threats and insults followed by endless copy paste-O-Grams..............skill is wasted when the person dismisses every opinion not his own._

 

[Chris Parker]

Without "shooting the messenger" here....

As someone who has trained with Prof. Ras on a few occasions, I will say this:

Ras is someone who has training in the martial arts, although some of which I cannot verify. But back in the day some of the SKK beaters such as Cerio, Parker, and others had little to no official studio time and lots of “hands on” experience. I would not want to face Prof. Ras on the street!

It's obvious that Ras has had physical training, but he doesn't appear to have had what I would call an education. He comes across as having learnt a range of sequences of movements, and thinks that equates to different martial arts without understanding why each art does what it does, or doesn't. I mean, the guys talking about how "generally speaking, Judoka don't do jumping kicks, or triple spin kicks", and then goes on about how they'd be better if they had "such a full set of atemi". Are you kidding me? All that does is scream to me that he has no freakin' idea about martial arts themselves, all he can do is put together movements. This is why he can't follow any question I put to him, he simply doesn't have any education relating to it.

My understanding is that he would like to elevate the methods and training paradigms of all arts to include those he uses in his gym. Most of us will never have to pressure test our training in the sheer volume or method Prof. Ras does.

Yeah, Ras would love everyone to be just like Ras... thing is, most of what he's advocating is already done, typically in better, more structured ways. He's hardly new, unique, innovative, or anything of the kind. And if he'd actually get some education under a real school, as opposed to having learnt everything from his uncle (which is how it all reads... I'd say he's got no actual rank in Judo, for instance [meaning Kodokan], as he gets so much wrong there that it's just terrible, but has been taught "judo" by his uncle. Same with his Iaido claims, same with each different line of his Kempo [Shaolin, American, whatever], with maybe some of his TKD in an actual school), then he could actually a) be good, and b) realize that he's not really doing anything that much different or better than anyone else. As I've said to him, he's a few decades behind me in his understanding.

I can clearly see several aspects of his training that we should appreciate and consider on our own:

1. Contact Resistance Method (live attacks, weapons to targets, punching through not to target)

And this is different to others how?

2. Emphasis on availability of techniques and not number of known techniques: “quality over quantity”. We see this from the Long Beach/BKF influence of his training.

Again, this hardly a new concept, and when he's talking about using the same technique for every different circumstance, he's missed the point. And if he's genuinely after just the ones that work, he's best off just looking at one system, not the mess of 20 that he claims, as he's going in the exact wrong direction for that.

3. Tailoring: Ras has adapted his training for his own needs and purposes given all “individual” variables.

Again, this is a very common concept. In fact, I can't think of any art that doesn't encourage such things. Even something as rigid as Iaido allows for personalisation of your performance, based on the length of your sword, and any personal issues you may have.

4. Evaluation of knowledge based on instant data not on theory or guesses: He keeps what works for him. This is expressed though the argument over the “ideal” phase of techniques.

However his evaluations are often flawed, being based in a false environment (and yes, sparring is a false environment unless you're looking for what works in sparring), as well as missing the point of the way the ideal phase techniques are designed.

5. Rock-Drop-Lock: His expression of a common theme in mixed martial arts and in other “traditional arts”. Tonight while on the web, I came across a video by Mr. Van Donk about Bujinkan Ninjitsu and the philosophy of technique and training:

Er, RVD gets a hell of a lot wrong as well, for the record... but that's beside the point. Basically, he's expressing a basic strategy, which is fine, but it's a flawed one for self defence. You don't want to "lock" in self defence (which is apparently what he's focused on...), you want to get away.

Oh, and "ninjutsu"... sorry, but there's a reason there.

“7 Principles of instant defense:
1. Awareness – Mind as protection
2. Distance your body safely
3. Commit yourself to action
4. Do multiple hits for each attack
5. Grab hold and destroy their balance
6. Take them down. Close the Gap
7. Finnish. Subdue or get away”

Yeah, I know that video. It's RVD's "Combat Ninjutsu" one... well, I'll put it this way, that video was given to me by my instructor with the words "Here, this is how bad a 10th Dan can be". RVD's list there actually contradicts the very art he's teaching, as well as the basic ideals of self defense in a couple of cases.

Some areas in which I can disagree and still be able to glean from his videos:

1. Terminology – Prof. Ras misuses terminology (concepts, techniques, paradigms) and tries to fit squares into round holes to try to make his point. He should try to come up with his own terminology or properly define his terms so that everyone can be on the same page.

Which he's been told.

2. Ideal-what if- formulation – Prof. Ras is trying to use a concept from EPAK that does not need to apply to the training he offers in his gym. In fact, the continued reference to each of these topics convolutes the issue further. I believe Prof. Ras fits this formula better “see it – drop it – keep it”.

He uses EPAK terms and concepts, and uses EPAK techniques (which he denigrates) to compare to his "better, more functional" techniques... then when asked what the connection is, he says that he's not teaching EPAK(?!?!) Then why use the terms and do comparisons with EPAK techniques?!?! If he'd just say "hey, I'm teachings ATACX Gym Kempo, here's something we do", that would at least remove that side of things... wouldn't make his techniques magically great, but it'd remove the confusion to a degree.

3. Aggressive attitude or Bravado – Due to his position, training, heritage ect…Prof. Ras sees things through his Long Beach lens. Would the conversations here on the internet be different if this lens was removed? I believe so!

Possibly.

This is just my evaluation from some training time and watching the online conversations here on Martial Talk. This observation is entirely my personal view, no harm or offense was intended. “don’t shoot the messenger”. I hope that this will give a “lens” for those who read/watch Prof. Ras online and to be able to glean something valuable to add to their training.

Chris

Look, to be blunt Chris, he needs to be smacked upside the head, hard. Online the only way that can be done is to argue against everything he puts up... but his sense of ego doesn't let him see any criticism as valid. He thanks people for their criticism, then turns around and says "you're completely wrong and ignorant", but can't back it up. He then claims to have "atomically annihilated" their point, if it gets continued. His arguments really do often amount to "I'm great, you all suck, unless you agree with me, in which case you're a shining light of a martial artist", which is how he describes you when you back him up.

And, bluntly, all you do when you do that is support his egotistical delusions. You rarely actually add anything to the conversation, just say something that supports Ras without being specific in your comments, or (such as in the ATACX Gym Judo thread), after two pages of Ras being shown as not having a clue about Judo, and having no idea about what he's actually showing, with Judoka and BJJ practitioners all pointing out the glaring issues with the technique, and his presentation of it, you come along and say "Very nice, thanks for sharing". I gotta ask, Chris, what did you think that would accomplish? It just looks like you're sucking up to him, for whatever reason. It's not keeping the peace, it's just a comment that shows that you didn't have much understanding of what Ras was showing either.

I'm not suggesting that you don't come onto his threads and support him, but if there's no point to doing so, why do it?

 

[MJS]

1. "They" doesn't mean "everyone"...but I see where you're coming from. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Ok. For clarification purposes, who are you referring to?

2. Some do weapon training and mulit attacks, [ like the BKF and several associations I've become familiar with growing up, including Twin Dragons ], but none that I know of do First Aid/CPR. Like I said: they do "a lot of what I mention..." not ALL of what I mention.

All of the places that offer a sport art, ie: BJJ, MMA, etc, do not incorporate that into that training. However, some of the schools, also offer SD oriented classes, however, they're seperate. Furthermore, very few schools from what I've seen cover CPR, first aid, etc.

3. They weren't duped into thinking that what they do was the end all be all. They were already comfortable with the notion of cross-training. That was one of the main reasons why it was so easy to reach them: they were already adherents of the concept of the supremacy of performance.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. Royce was, for a long time, a 1 dimensional fighter. Wasn't until he faced, I believe Matt Huges, that he started to work on boxing and kicking, however, those skills proved useless, as he still got his *** handed to him. No, IMO, in the early days, it seemed that the pure BJJ guys only stressed that, saying that was all you need. As time went on, sure, the value of crosstraining was seen by people.

 

[Tez3]

Ok. For clarification purposes, who are you referring to?



All of the places that offer a sport art, ie: BJJ, MMA, etc, do not incorporate that into that training. However, some of the schools, also offer SD oriented classes, however, they're seperate. Furthermore, very few schools from what I've seen cover CPR, first aid, etc.



We may have to agree to disagree on this. Royce was, for a long time, a 1 dimensional fighter. Wasn't until he faced, I believe Matt Huges, that he started to work on boxing and kicking, however, those skills proved useless, as he still got his *** handed to him. No, IMO, in the early days, it seemed that the pure BJJ guys only stressed that, saying that was all you need. As time went on, sure, the value of crosstraining was seen by people.

All our fighters know CPR, they are all battlefield first aid trained. Sorry, just being cheeky. Apart from that our chief instructor is an ex army Combat Medical Technician so we get first aid stuff plus why things work from a physiological view.

We have weapons in our club, the fighters will play with them sometimes for a change, they are shown how to use them but it's not 'training' as such, just for interest really. Perhaps when they are too old to fight they may take up weapons and/or train in a TMA style as a main style.

 

[Twin Fist]

the very title f this thread is insulting as hell and the mods should delete it

 

[Tez3]

the very title f this thread is insulting as hell and the mods should delete it

It's only insulting if you know what the heck it means! I don't tbh.

 

[MJS]

He uses EPAK terms and concepts, and uses EPAK techniques (which he denigrates) to compare to his "better, more functional" techniques... then when asked what the connection is, he says that he's not teaching EPAK(?!?!) Then why use the terms and do comparisons with EPAK techniques?!?! If he'd just say "hey, I'm teachings ATACX Gym Kempo, here's something we do", that would at least remove that side of things... wouldn't make his techniques magically great, but it'd remove the confusion to a degree.

This, IMHO, is probably the #1 reason why there's such a big issue here. This is right along the lines with what I was saying in another post. You can line up 5 Kenpoists, and have them do the same tech. While there will most likely be slight differences, I feel its safe to say that the tech would still be recognizeable. In this case, alot of what we're seeing looks nothing like what we see in 99% of the Kenpo schools out there.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Training now but I noted the responses ranging from page 6-7. Interesting, for the most part. I will respond to them when I return.

 

[MJS]

Hmm...I'm going to toss something else into the mix here. Since all we're doing is talking about Kenpo, I'm going to mention Kajukenbo. Now, IMO, there's an art that does alot. After watching the Fight Quest Kaju episode, it seems pretty apparent to me that they're pretty well rounded.

Does anyone else agree? Disagree? If so, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

Just in case this was missed, ignored, etc. Do they have the same 'issues' that EPAK supposedly has?

 

[ATACX GYM]

Just in case this was missed, ignored, etc. Do they have the same 'issues' that EPAK supposedly has?

I've known Kaju guys for decades. Many of them can bang. Some...not so much. I would say that most of the Kaju guys I know are the kinds that I wouldn't mind at all having with me when it's GO TIME...but many of the Kaju guys I know don't have a strong ground sub game

 

[MJS]

I've known Kaju guys for decades. Many of them can bang. Some...not so much. I would say that most of the Kaju guys I know are the kinds that I wouldn't mind at all having with me when it's GO TIME...but many of the Kaju guys I know don't have a strong ground sub game

So going on this, am I safe to assume you feel they have the same issues as EPAK does? To be more specific...would a thread like this, as well as all of the others, be warranted for Kaju?