Thanks for the replies.
I understand the term "kenpo" and it's translation of "chuan fa". I guess what I'm really asking is, what is the difference between those systems, and animal form kung fu?
Let me throw this out there: Is it the modernization of the techniques that are tailored more for present day street encounters that separates the systems from more traditional kung fu?
A large percentage of the the Chinese kenpo websites I found refer to themselves teaching Chinese Kenpo, Chinese karate, etc., but teach Ed Parker's commercial curriculum. How can this be when Parker's system has been labeled American kenpo?
I'd like to hear from the CMA guys and gals on this as well as the Parker guys. Maybe I should have posted this under the Kenpo board to field more input. (maybe a mod can help out
)
One more question: Is the NCKKA under Mr. Swan the original Chinese kenpo? What about the Tracy systems?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Al, Jim and Will Tracy were among the earliest students of Ed Parker in the 1950s and early 1960s (I think Will claims to have been a student of William Chow). As Mr. Parker later changed the art that he was teaching, the Tracys decided to keep the original curriculum. For whatever reasons they had, they disagreed with the direction Mr. Parker was taking the art, so they ultimately split away completely. Their claim is that they teach the original art as it was taught in the early days by Mr. Parker, and this makes the assumption that Mr. Parker at that time was teaching the art as he learned it from William Chow. The Tracys call their art "Tracys Kenpo Karate", and refer to it as "traditional kenpo". The Tracy Curriculum contains many more formal Self Defense Techniques than the EPAK curriculum, (some 381 in Tracys, plus variations totaling about 600, to about 154 plus extensions in EPAK) but you would find much that is similar in the two curriculi. Tracys don't have all the "sets" that EPAK has, but the numbered forms follow closely. Tracys also has a number of other forms and material that were adopted from other Chinese arts.
As to the differences between kenpo and animal and other forms of Kung Fu: to my knowledge, kenpo is the only art that has a curriculum structured in the way that it does. This vast body of Self Defense techniques is an approach that other arts tend to not do. Many other arts do have some self defense techniques similar to kenpos, but not nearly so many, and they don't make them the main focus of their curriculum. So kenpo is a bit unique in that regard. Whether that makes it a more "modern" or somehow "effective" or "useful" system would be subject to debate and personal opinion.
Typically, Chinese arts tend to be focused around forms. Students learn basics first: stances, strikes, blocking, kicking, footwork, etc. Then they learn the forms, which contain the formal body of knowledge contained in the system. Once the form is learned, the student studies it and learns how to apply the movement in the form to actual fighting. The forms can be very stylized, esp. in the animal systems.
Kenpo tends to work in the other direction. The student learns the SD techniques, which are the main focus of the curriculum, and many of the forms are built using these same SD techs. The kenpo forms, at least in Tracys and EPAK systems, are not stylized in the way the animal arts are. They are just straight forward SD techs, no fluff, not much "hidden" or obscured the way the Asian arts can be.
Some Kenpo branches claim to have added Chinese material, in particular the animal material. I believe these branches trace their lineage back to William Chow in Hawaii (Ed Parker's teacher), but route thru people like Nick Cerio and Fred Villari on the East Coast, perhaps also Ralph Castro in California. I have not seen their material so I cannot really comment on it. However, it is my suspicion that what they have added is not true Chinese animal material. I think there is a tendency by some to learn a little material that contains a few animal-like movements, i.e. tigerclaws, or crane stances, and then claim that they have incorporated the "Five Animals Kung Fu". Again, I can't really judge because I am not familiar with their stuff, but I am suspicious and doubtful. I think Animal Kung Fu is deep and thorough all by itself, and isn't something that one can just quickly and easily "add" to their kenpo system. It would require a lot of deep study and long practice to understand and gain competence with it first. Maybe these people have really done this, but I just don't know.
There is also a difference between Five Animals kung fu, and complete Animal arts. Five Animals is something that several Chinese systems contain, like Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut. These are sort of subsets, or specific forms developed around the five animals, tiger, dragon, crane, deer, I can't remember the fifth, and they make up only a portion of the complete curriculum of the system. And I think different arts may list the five animals differently.
But this is different from the complete systems based around an animal, such as Tibetan White Crane, Fukien White Crane, Preying Mantis, Black Tiger, Dragon Style, etc. The Crane that you would find in Choy Li Fut's Five Animals would not be the same as the Tibetan White Crane, or the Fukien White Crane systems, for example.
I hope this helps? and I hope I'm characterizing this correctly. I don't personally have experience with Five Animals kung fu, but this is how I understand it based on what I have read and seen and discussions I have had.
