Dear Dennis,
Of course you know I meant no disrespect in not mentioning your name among my “very” short list of “top notch” instructors. As I was compiling the list, and remembered to mention my ex-wife, I figured I was safe.
And when I said it isn’t the instructor’s responsibility to maintain, or uphold, the standard of Kenpo. I was writing from “student” perspective and trying to establish the concept of “student-beware” to our readers. On the other hand, as a teacher of Kenpo, and looking at it from a teachers perspective – I agree with you wholeheartedly.
By the way, IÂ’ll be in Scottsdale later this month. IÂ’ll be sure to stop by and say hello.
MJS,
I hear what youÂ’re saying, but a question as simple as this, can sometimes require fairly lengthy answers, I hope you, and our other members, donÂ’t mind.
I will first assume that you are referring to these changes that certain people are making are, in fact, good and well though-out changes. IÂ’m sure the person making the change thinks itÂ’s a good change, as I donÂ’t expect anybody is going to purposely change a technique, or form, to make it less effective. But on the other hand decisions and changes I made 20 and 30 years ago, that looked good to me at the time, donÂ’t necessarily stand up all that well today.
I may not be better than, or as good as, anyone else, but IÂ’m definitely better than I was 30 years ago, so my own experience has taught me to be concerned with the process for, and the criteria used, when changing a technique/form, etc.
Take for example the side kick used in second set of moves in Long Form 2. Mr. Parker taught this move as a “Jab” with the foot. The movement parallels, simultaneously, with the jabbing fist. Many people have changed this little kick into a full-blown side kick, and for some, the higher the better.
So letÂ’s go back to the criteria I used, when I first wanted to change this move from what Mr. Parker created to something I wanted.
Here is my own reason for “wanting” to change that particular move, 30 years ago: I felt silly doing a little kick like that, what if someone saw me kicking only inches off the ground? They would think I couldn’t kick any higher than that, and (at the time) I could kick straight up. (Not a good reason to me today, but at the time I didn’t know why the form called for a low kick, so for me, it was a good reason at the time.)
But if I were to have changed that move in the form, do you think I would have told anyone my real reason for doing it. Do you think I would have said something like, “Well class, I changed the side kick, in Long 2, from a low jab to a high snap, because I don’t actually know what I’m supposed to doing in the first place and secondly, I really don’t want to take the time to find out, because I would rather do a more cool looking kick anyway.” This would not have been a very good reason to make a change.
On the other hand, I once had a buddy tell me he changed the jab kick to a high side thrust kick, because he competed in open karate tournaments and low kicks “did not” win trophies at open tournaments.
In my opinion, thatÂ’s still not a valid reason to change the form, but I did respect the criteria he used in his decision making process, more than my own.
So what criteria should we use for making changes to Ed Parker’s Kenpo? First of all if we’re going to call it “Ed Parker’s Kenpo” then changes of any kind should be far and few between.
If on the other hand, someone decides to call their art, “(Your Name Here) Kenpo”, then it’s up to (Your Name Here) to make any changes they want. That way they aren’t going to either polish, or tarnish, Mr. Parker’s name in the process. It will be they, and not Mr. Parker, who will, eventually, be judged by the quality of their Kenpo system, and any changes they make to it.
Aside from this, assuming we are not changing the name to “Your Name Here”, my criteria for making changes is fairly simple.
For example: LetÂ’s say I would like to change the middle knuckle fist, in Parting Wings, to a vertical punch. Here is my process for deciding if I can justify the change. In this (and every) scenario I play both the role of myself and Mr. Parker.
Mr. Hale: I would like to make a change to one of “your” self-defense techniques.
Mr. Parker: What would you like to change?
Mr. Hale: The middle-knuckle punch in Parting Wings.
Mr. Parker: What do I want to change it to?
Mr. Hale: A vertical punch.
Mr. Parker: Why do you want to make this change?
Mr. Hale: Because most people (me included) seldom condition their middle knuckle by striking (firm) targets with a middle-knuckle fist. When performing this technique “full power” against a training partner, wearing a chest protector, I and my students all pulled our middle-knuckle punches, to keep form injuring ourselves.
Mr. Parker: So, due to inadequate training by you, and your students, you think I should change this move and deprive my more dedicated and physically capable students from being exposed to this particular natural weapon?
Mr. Hale: Well . . . no . . . I just . . .
Mr. Parker: Why don’t you do this, when teaching Parting Wings to your students? Teach them how the technique is done, and then tell them how you do it. Then explain the pros and cons of both applications, letting your students choose which method they prefer – without depriving them of the same opportunity of choice, that I have given to you.
But, thatÂ’s such a simple example, so letÂ’s do one more.
Mr. Hale: Good afternoon Mr. Parker, I would like to change Thrusting Salute to include variations B and C: “A” being your original, out of the book technique, and B and C being to variations for when your opponent is too close to you to execute a front kick after the left downward block.
Mr. Parker: Good afternoon Rich Hale, and what would these variations you call “Variation B and Variation C” be?
Mr. Hale: The first variation would be to shuffle backward with the downward block, creating the space needed to deliver the kick, and the second variation would be to step back into a neutral bow, just like the in the book, but then deliver a right knee to the groin instead of full length kick.
Mr. Parker: What is wrong with my original technique where you first step back into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a left downward block to your opponentÂ’s right kicking leg, then immediately following up with a right kick to your opponentÂ’s groin?
Mr. Hale: There never seems to be enough room to deliver my kick to his groin, after I have blocked his kick.
Mr. Parker: How do interpret the term “immediately”?
Mr. Hale: To do something right after you do something else.
Mr. Parker: When you walk, do you pause between steps?
Mr. Hale: No . . .
Mr. Parker: So, you would say that when you walk you are moving one foot “immediately” after the other?
Mr. Hale: Yes . . .
Mr. Parker: Have you ever stepped on a nail?
Mr. Hale: Yes, actually I have?
Mr. Parker: Did you move your foot “immediately?
Mr. Hale: Yes I did!
Mr. Parker: More “immediately” than how “immediately” you do when you are walking?
Mr. Hale: Yes, a lot more immediately!
Mr. Parker: So what if you were to move just as “immediately” after you have executed your downward block in Thrusting Salute. Do you think that your kick may, in fact, reach your opponent’s groin, before his body comes too close to your own body, to execute a proper kick?
Mr. Parker: Furthermore, do you think that if you were able to kick his groin so “immediately” that your kick made contact with his groin before his right foot has a chance to land, thus taking advantage of his forward momentum, while utilizing the principles of borrowed force, opposing forces, and marriage of gravity - in order to maximize the impact of your kick to your opponent’s groin?
Mr. Parker: Next time you practice Thrusting Salute, I want you to imagine that when you step back into your left neutral bow, while executing a left downward block to the inside of your opponent’s right kicking leg, that you have stepped onto an “instantaneously activated” land mine, that “immediately” blows your right foot forward into your opponent’s groin. That should give you plenty of time and space to deliver your kick, and eliminate the need for variations B and C.
This is not to say I don’t make changes to our techniques – I do.
For example, when doing Shield and Sword I donÂ’t deliver a right roundhouse kick to my opponentÂ’s right kidney as the final strike in the purple belt version of the technique.
Due to training, most martial artists chamber their right fist when executing a left step through punch, so when my partners attack me for this technique, there is often a very nasty (hidden from view) elbow awaiting the arrival of my right (kicking) foot.
Now in the past, I simply kicked them in the back of the head, now days I kick their left leg with a right, downward-looping roundhouse kick.
Criteria for the original change: Pain
Criteria for the more recent change: Old Age
And if Mr. Parker were to say to me, “So, due to your inability to deliver a properly aimed right roundhouse kick to the kidney, you would deprive your students of this target?”
I would say, “No sir, I teach my students that the technique calls for a right kick to the kidney, but due to my own inability to strike the proper target without maiming myself, I have chosen to alter the target . . . just as you have allowed us to do under the principal of “Compensating”, in which you state: To move in such a manner that room for error, or adjustment (on the part of the deliverer) is allowed.” Then I would smile at him and hope for the best.
If we were all to use our best criteria as a basis of making changes and then (mentally) run the idea by Mr. Parker, I think fewer and better changes would be made.
In the case where changes are made, I only suggest that we not carve all these changes into stone. The changes we make today, and the reasons for them, may not look the same, ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.
