24-techniques per belt system

S

SingingTiger

Guest
Does anyone know when the 24 techniques per belt system was codified by Mr. Parker?

Prior to that, was there an earlier codified system, or did the self-defense techniques play a lesser role in his teachings?

Thanks,
Rich
 
Originally posted by SingingTiger
Does anyone know when the 24 techniques per belt system was codified by Mr. Parker?
Rich

About 1979

Originally posted by SingingTiger
Prior to that, was there an earlier codified system, or did the self-defense techniques play a lesser role in his teachings? Thanks, Rich

Yes, there was the 32 technique system.
32 orange
32 purple
32 blue
32 green

and just before Ed Parker passed on he was working on the 16 technique rearrangement of the curriculum.

:asian:
 
I began Tracy's back in 1971 - 72 (sorry... don't remember exact dates that far back! :lol: ). Tracy's was a direct offshoot from Parker and had 40 techs per belt i those days. I only say that to say that it might have been heavier in SGM Parker's schools in those days, I think that was, essentially, Pre-American Kenpo.

Dan
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7

About 1979



Yes, there was the 32 technique system.
32 orange
32 purple
32 blue
32 green

and just before Ed Parker passed on he was working on the 16 technique rearrangement of the curriculum.

:asian:

Ok, here goes, this question has plagued me long enough. And it may have been discussed before, and i just missed it. Here goes.....If Mr. Parker was going to rearrange the curriculum to 16, then why did he lay the system out under the 24 techniques in Book 5?
:confused:
 
Originally posted by jeffkyle
Ok, here goes, this question has plagued me long enough. And it may have been discussed before, and i just missed it. Here goes.....If Mr. Parker was going to rearrange the curriculum to 16, then why did he lay the system out under the 24 techniques in Book 5?
:confused:

Yes, it has been discussed before in depth, but I'll comment again anyway........

I guess you could ask the same question when you were utilizing the 32 technique system as well couldn't you...........................

"If Mr. Parker was going to rearrange the curriculum to 24, then why did he lay the system out under the 32 techniques originally"?

The answer is simple. Progress and evolution of system.

Originally as the techniques, forms and sets were "being developed" the SYSTEM or CURRICULUM took on many forms or several different combinations ... many of which were experimental or by trial and error (techniques forms and sets were placed at various different ranks depending upon what was available at the time - we even used kung fu forms as fillers until our forms were officially developed and inserted into the system) until Mr. Parker arrived at a curriculum he was happy with.

With the advent of commercialism in the 60's there was an increased need to develop a curriculum so as to be able to "sell" the system in a commercial studio (Thank you Tom Connor "Traco" and the help of Arthur Murray Dance Business methods).

Thus the initial curriculums were born. At the time of the printing of the Infinite Insight Series ('82) .... the curriculum at that time
(since about '79), was the reasonably new 24 technique system. The 24 technique system wasn't initially widely accepted completely at that time by many that had become used to the 32 system and old timers that had even older arrangements. But as the studios reported back to Mr. Parker with the results of the new arrangement it became more accepted.

However, many studio owners still found the large number of techniques somewhat difficult to "compete" in the market with TKD studios (which teach few techniques and have rapid advancement). Thus, Brian Duffy of Austin Texas decided to take on the task of "expanding" the 24 technique system to 5th Black vs. 3rd. Mr. Parker was very receptive to the project. And after several "tweakings" Mr. Parker gave the go ahead to several instructors to use the curriculum particularly since this new arrangement did not drop "anything" only increased the length of the system 2 belt levels, in fact, it organized a bit better the order of techniques taught.

Unfortunately, Mr. Parker then passed on before what I believe would have been the newest rearrangement of the system. If he didn't approve of it, he wouldn't have allowed the use at that time, fact is he understood the need and liked the new order.

It still must be noted that, even though Mr. Parker changed the system at times...... as long as you taught the system regardless of what arrangement be it 32, 24 or 16 he accepted all. His main interest was in the outcome and execution of principles, concepts, and theories that he had developed NOT specifically which road you took to get there.

:asian:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7

About 1979
...
Yes, there was the 32 technique system.
...
and just before Ed Parker passed on he was working on the 16 technique rearrangement of the curriculum.

Thank you, Mr. Conatser! Now things are making a little more sense. With the 24 vs. 16 discussion in the "technical" forum, I became curious as to where, exactly, the techniques that I'm learning came from. So I asked the owner of the dojo where I study, and he said that they are from the original "Kenpo-Karate" curriculum, along with some material that he brought with him from the Tracy system, from 30 to 40 years ago (the school was opened in 1962, and the current owner bought it in 1972).

You wouldn't have any reference materials that describe the techniques that Mr. Parker was teaching way back in the early '60's, would you? I find the historical and evolutionary aspects of the art quite interesting.

Originally posted by jeffkyle

If Mr. Parker was going to rearrange the curriculum to 16, then why did he lay the system out under the 24 techniques in Book 5?

This doesn't seem all that surprising to me. Book 1 has a copyright date of 1982, and book 5 has a copyright date of 1987, so it's reasonable to assume that he wrote book 5 sometime in between. Even if he wrote it in 1987, it was still three or four years until his death, and he may have only started considering a change to 16 techniques per belt within the last year of his life. And even if he had been considering it longer, I'm sure that, after five years, he was ready to get book 5 out with whatever material he had prepared at that point.

As your signature points out, I think that even as he wrote he knew that what he was describing would evolve.

Rich
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7

Yes, it has been discussed before in depth, but I'll comment again anyway........

I guess you could ask the same question when you were utilizing the 32 technique system as well couldn't you...........................

"If Mr. Parker was going to rearrange the curriculum to 24, then why did he lay the system out under the 32 techniques originally"?

The answer is simple. Progress and evolution of system.

Originally as the techniques, forms and sets were "being developed" the SYSTEM or CURRICULUM took on many forms or several different combinations ... many of which were experimental or by trial and error (techniques forms and sets were placed at various different ranks depending upon what was available at the time - we even used kung fu forms as fillers until our forms were officially developed and inserted into the system) until Mr. Parker arrived at a curriculum he was happy with.

With the advent of commercialism in the 60's there was an increased need to develop a curriculum so as to be able to "sell" the system in a commercial studio (Thank you Tom Connor "Traco" and the help of Arthur Murray Dance Business methods).

Thus the initial curriculums were born. At the time of the printing of the Infinite Insight Series ('82) .... the curriculum at that time
(since about '79), was the reasonably new 24 technique system. The 24 technique system wasn't initially widely accepted completely at that time by many that had become used to the 32 system and old timers that had even older arrangements. But as the studios reported back to Mr. Parker with the results of the new arrangement it became more accepted.

However, many studio owners still found the large number of techniques somewhat difficult to "compete" in the market with TKD studios (which teach few techniques and have rapid advancement). Thus, Brian Duffy of Austin Texas decided to take on the task of "expanding" the 24 technique system to 5th Black vs. 3rd. Mr. Parker was very receptive to the project. And after several "tweakings" Mr. Parker gave the go ahead to several instructors to use the curriculum particularly since this new arrangement did not drop "anything" only increased the length of the system 2 belt levels, in fact, it organized a bit better the order of techniques taught.

Unfortunately, Mr. Parker then passed on before what I believe would have been the newest rearrangement of the system. If he didn't approve of it, he wouldn't have allowed the use at that time, fact is he understood the need and liked the new order.

It still must be noted that, even though Mr. Parker changed the system at times...... as long as you taught the system regardless of what arrangement be it 32, 24 or 16 he accepted all. His main interest was in the outcome and execution of principles, concepts, and theories that he had developed NOT specifically which road you took to get there.

:asian:

Thank you for taking the time to comment Mr. C. :)
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7

His main interest was in the outcome and execution of principles, concepts, and theories that he had developed NOT specifically which road you took to get there.

While the technique differences between what I'm learning and "American Kenpo" make discussions a bit confusing at times, I have no doubt that I'm learning the principles, concepts, and theories that Ed Parker taught. Hearing from one of his students that that's what's important is very reassuring. Thanks!

Rich
 
Originally posted by SingingTiger

While the technique differences between what I'm learning and "American Kenpo" make discussions a bit confusing at times, I have no doubt that I'm learning the principles, concepts, and theories that Ed Parker taught. Hearing from one of his students that that's what's important is very reassuring. Thanks!

Rich


I agree..that is what is important! As long as you are learning those you are accomplishing what was intended.
 
I would add the following to all the great responses in this thread:

The 32 Technique system student booklets are copyright 1970. The 32 manuals were for instructors or franchise studio owners only, not students. They had 10 techniques for yellow, and 32 techniques each for orange through green, with 32 green-orange extensions. Most of these techniques and extensions are retained unchanged in the 24 technique curriculum.

The 24 technique manual is copyright 1975. The main difference between it and the 32 technique system is the addition of about 20 techniques extracted from base moves in the advanced forms, and the addition of 64 extensions.

If you want to know what was being taught earlier than that, Mr. Parker's first 2 books, "Kenpo Karate" and "Secrets of Chinese Karate," are the best place to start.

I hope this helps,

Way
 
After reading the article "1961-1962" on Sigung Steven LaBounty's website, and seeing a reference to a technique that had a name similar to a technique that we have, I sent him an e-mail. Based on his thoughtful and informative reply, it certainly appears that the techniques that we learn draw from Parker's (and Tracy's) original material.

I seem to remember seeing a reference to a website in a thread here where Tracy techniques are compared to EPAK techniques, but I can't remember which thread it was in. I'll do a search, but if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
Rich
 
Thanks, Blindside! I thought I remembered a link to a site where the techniques are actually described, but I may just be thinking of one of the many places people have referred me for descriptions of the EPAK techniques. This site was still very helpful, because many of the Tracy names are names of techniques that I have learned, and I believe I've seen several others on the advanced charts that I haven't gotten to yet. The cross-reference will make comparisons easier.

Thanks again!

Rich
 
Fellow Kenpoists,

I was just browsing through the posts on this subject and I think the key element is that no matter how many techniques, whether 24, 32, 16, and so on...

The most important thing is that you learn all of the principles and concepts in the system.

When I came up through the ranks, I learned 15 techniques per level. I believe the W.K.K.A. does this. Though my instructor is no longer under the W.K.K.A. he continues to use this layout because commercially it really does help! Try to take a 8 year old and have them learn 24 techniques, a form, and a set... plus all the islolated basics as well. That is a lot of information.

The only difference with the 15 to the 24, is that now instead of getting all the material at 3rd Black, it extends to 5th Black. In either case you get all the techniques in the system.

I believe, as Mr. Conaster mentioned that Mr. Parker would have had no problem with a 16 or 15 technique layout, just as long as all the concepts he wanted people to learn were there.

My end thoughts... teach what you want, and how you want in basic accordance with Mr. Parker's requirements. In the end we are all Kenpoists.

Good journey.

Respectfully In Kenpo,
Joshua Ryer
UPK Pittsburgh
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top