Continuing Evolution after SGM Parker's passing

[dubljay]

First and for most the intent of this thread is not to start a political/personal war here. Furthermore I am basing this off of a somewhat limited knowledge of the history of EPAK and MR. Parker as well as my own opinion, so if any assumptions or information is inaccurate please let me know I was wrong. With that being said:

SGM Parker created a unique martial arts system by drawing from many sources. His Kenpo Karate was very innovative for his time, and still remains to be a very powerful self defense art (in my opinion at least). He updated martial arts training and tactics for the time period, namely the 1950's and 60's. Under Mr. Parker's direction the art continued to change and evolve with the times.

From what I have observed there are some who remained in lockstep with the methods of teaching and tactics at the time of his passing. There were others that continued to change the art to meet the needs of the times, while trying to maintain the traditions of old.

My question is this: Is holding the art in a somewhat stagnate pattern, Ridgley adhering to the way the art was when SGM Parker passed on in keeping with Mr. Parkers vision of the art? Is someone who changes things, and innovates considered a non traditionalist when EPAK was a non traditional art to begin with, and if so when did EPAK become "traditional"?

Thoughts, criticism, flaws of fact or logic are all welcome.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It might help to answer if you'd be a little specific. Could you explain which teachers you mean? Which forms, techniques, etc., you find "rigidly," frozen, which which "innovations," you have in mond? For that matter, could you explain what you mean by, "innovation?"

 

[Kalicombat]

In my opinion, people take the phrase "evolution of the art" all wrong. I dont think the intent was to keep changing the art to mean 'strip away' or 'eliminate' material. Fighting and self defense today, in 2004 is no different then it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. The same dynamics that a one-on-one or even a one-on-multiple opponent altercation that were in place in the 70's are still in effect today. The same challenges that our grandfathers and fathers faced against some scumbag intent on injuring or robbing them are the same challenges that we face. People, in general have not evolved to freakish sizes, strengths, or abilities in the last 30 years. However, some NFL linemen and the humongous size that they have become may be the exception. But, I understand they grow NFL linemen on a farm in the midwest somewhere. But I digress.

For a practitioner of Ed Parkers American Kenpo to be qualified to start changing the art, or evolving it, he or she must do so from a completely informed and proficient opinion. That practitioner can not possibly hope to change the art with out learning the entire curriculum of EPAK. The problem is, people let their likes and dislikes enter into the equation. John "KENPO" Public may have wrestled in high school, or had his clock cleaned in a fight by a wrestler. So, he takes his green belt EPAK knowledge, marries it up with his wrestling knowledge, dumps the sets and forms, and has created a new Kenpo. Or a guy that has a bad back or a bum knee gets to a blue belt in EPAK and then decides that instead of strengthening his back, knee, etc., he will avoid those techniques that cause him discomfort. That is not evolving, but more like retarding the art.

The obvious distraction of EPAK is the vast amount of material contained in the curriculum. When some kid walks in to an EPAK studio and asks, "how long will it take for me to get a blackbelt", most dont like what they here. Especially when they can go around the corner and get a BB in a year or two from Sensi yada yada in Ancient-Counter-terrorism-flying-waterdragon-Original-Do or Sabumnim High Kickers Point-Sparring Ryu.

Much like all things in life, there are no short cuts worth taking. Trust me, I know. I wasted alot of time trying to find them.



Yours in EPAK,
Gary C.

 

[bdparsons]

For a practitioner of Ed Parkers American Kenpo to be qualified to start changing the art, or evolving it, he or she must do so from a completely informed and proficient opinion. That practitioner can not possibly hope to change the art with out learning the entire curriculum of EPAK.

Though I'm sure that I'll get flamed for this from the "Kenpo Faithful", I suggest that what is being postulated here has been accomplished to a certain extent by individuals such as Chuck Sullivan & Vic LeRoux and David German. I'm not talking about their systems being the end-all in Kenpo, but these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art. Understand I'm not disparaging those who practice EPAK in its various forms, just giving folks something to think about.

Got my asbestos suit on, let 'er rip!

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[Big Pat]

Mr. Parson,

Good thoughts. I don't think I remember Mr. Parker criticizing anyone for "thinking outside the {kenpo} box" - as long as it was done in a logical manner. He enjoyed making people think. I know that he gave Mr.Sullivan and LeRoux his blessing to do their IKCA Kenpo. An interesting read on this subject is Mr. Bob Orlando's book, Martial Arts America-A Western Approach to the Eastern Arts. The book is dedicated to Mr. Parker.

EKP RIP
Big Pat
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

It might help if you could explain what this means:

"these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art."

What step? why's it logical? why greater practicality?

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Though I'm sure that I'll get flamed for this from the "Kenpo Faithful", I suggest that what is being postulated here has been accomplished to a certain extent by individuals such as Chuck Sullivan & Vic LeRoux and David German. I'm not talking about their systems being the end-all in Kenpo, but these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art. Understand I'm not disparaging those who practice EPAK in its various forms, just giving folks something to think about.

Got my asbestos suit on, let 'er rip!

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

OK, can't let this one ride without saying something LOL. Logical step in practicality is not what the IKCA curriculum is about, I know, I was there when they created it. Techniques are changed by those who don't or didn't get the info from their instructors, or, those who simply don't or won't understand the nature of the material given to them. The EPAK system doesn't need to change, or evolve, it just needs to be refined, again and again.

DarK LorD

 

[Seig]

Evolution for the sake of eveloution is silly. Nothing evolves unless there is a need for it. If you are learning the base art properly, and then refining it, you are not evolving the system, but yourself.

 

[Ceicei]

I dont think the intent was to keep changing the art to mean 'strip away' or 'eliminate' material. Fighting and self defense today, in 2004 is no different then it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990. The same dynamics that a one-on-one or even a one-on-multiple opponent altercation that were in place in the 70's are still in effect today. The same challenges that our grandfathers and fathers faced against some scumbag intent on injuring or robbing them are the same challenges that we face. People, in general have not evolved to freakish sizes, strengths, or abilities in the last 30 years.

True, people in general might not change, but the weaponry used over the years did change. Thus, if the choice of weapons and the technology to make them do change, it behooves the martial artists to understand how they are used and how to defend against them. People may argue a knife is a knife and a gun is a gun and how they are handled remain the same. Don't forget though, that weapons get more efficient through the years and differ according to region.

I suppose it won't be much longer, if not already, for lazer to be a weapon for the common citizen. I haven't seen any martial arts training against/for that yet.

Now with Mr. Parker, he embraced weapons and understood the need to become proficient with them. He also understood that Kenpo should be flexible enough to adapt, or as others have mentioned, the kenpoist learns to "think/act outside the box."

- Ceicei

 

[Blindside]

Maybe it is the biologist in me, but I have a problem with the term "evolution" with regard to what I see in the martial arts, or more specifically in kenpo.

Evolution requires selective pressure, and I don't see much of that except for the selective pressure of the appeal to students.

If you want to watch selective pressure on a martial arts (well martial sport), rent every odd number UFC and watch it. Watch as the plethora of styles adapt to the rules of the game, and further adapt to the changes in the rules. Now with the rules fairly steady, the fighters from all the camps fight relatively similar. Some kick more, some strike more, and everybody grapples.

What selective pressure is happening that kenpo has to adapt to? What has really changed in the past 14 years, or 25/30 for that matter? What I see going on right now is simply variation, without pressure there is no evolution. Something has to come along and disprove some of these variations for anyone to say that they have "evolved" the art.

Just my opinion, and before I get accused of being a traditionalist, well, I'm far from it. I'm the guy who is usually arguing for change in my school, but even then, all I am doing is creating another variation.

Lamont

 

[Blindside]

True, people in general might not change, but the weaponry used over the years did change. Thus, if the choice of weapons and the technology to make them do change, it behooves the martial artists to understand how they are used and how to defend against them. People may argue a knife is a knife and a gun is a gun and how they are handled remain the same. Don't forget though, that weapons get more efficient through the years and differ according to region.

The Colt .45 automatic pistol was adopted by the US military in 1911, the difference between that pistol and a glock are fairly negligible with regards to self defense. Revolvers basically haven't changed at all. Alternately, show me a knife design that is more "efficient" than historical examples. Sure there are probably more kerambits in the US than 15 years ago, but is the art of kenpo going to fundamentally be changed by their presence? Now if everyone carried them....

Assuming that a laser is directional, and man portable, then the directive of "divert" doesn't change at all, nor do the subsequent steps.

Lamont

 

[dubljay]

Hmm perhaps I should have more carefully considered my approach to this topic before committing it to the forum.

After having sometime to think about my post ( as well as have a great 2 hr work out) I guess what I really meant was to ask this:

** by traditional I mean no disrespect in any way, but what I the way I define it is that those who have broken from the exact art as Mr. Parker left it have sometimes are not considered EPAK, sometimes not Kenpo at all. (granted some situations that may be true) **


Did EPAK transform from a practical street self defense art into a "traditional" system?

From what I understand about Mr. Parker's intentions for his art, it was to make it practical for street application of the time. Mr. Parker broke from tradition of martial arts of his time for street application of the 1950's. So has EPAK become a "traditional" art that is no longer applicable to the streets of this century; where opponents and laws have changed? Opponents have changed too. In the 50's there was no UFC matches on Pay per view TV. Today you have couch potatoes running around mimicking potentially lethal techniques with no knowledge or formal training. Granted they my not be able use them as proficiency as a MA practitioner, but they still pose a threat.


I apologize for lack of clarity and I appreciate everyone's input.

Some days I think I should be kicked in the head before I open my mouth.

 

[bdparsons]

"these instructors have taken the next logical step in the practicality of the art." What step? why's it logical? why greater practicality?

Robert, good to talk to you again. What I meant by the referenced statement is that I feel these individuals have taken the time to evaluate their chosen art and concentrate on application, meaning application as applied to the body of work as a whole. That to me is should be the "next step" when it comes to any martial art, and if done properly it's logical, and better application always translates into more practicality. We should always be asking ourselves as MA practitioners if what we've learned can be applied better, more efficiently. In reference to EPAK some have felt that it can be, while others have decided to leave it "as is". Granted, the individuals mentioned took two different routes in that regard to making changes. German by adding elements of other arts to Kenpo; Sullivan and LeRoux by concentrating it.

The EPAK system doesn't need to change, or evolve, it just needs to be refined, again and again.

Clyde! Why did I know this would draw you out of the closet?!? It's my contention that in fact that's exactly what Sullivan and LeRoux did. Refine the art. I think what you mean is practiced again and again. Refining is the process of removing impurities and imperfections to arrive at a finished result, or at least one you're satisfied with. We can argue all day long about what Sullivan and LeRoux knew when they developed the IKCA curriculum. Been down that road before, and we're both firmly entrenched in our positions. Remind me sometime to tell you why I hold the position they did know the system (and it's not just because they said they did, I'm not that gullible). BTW, whatever happened to your adamant stand on not posting anonymously? Are we not practicing what we're preaching? Surely not. (...and stop calling me shirley!)

Respects to you both,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Ahhh...revisiting my favorite topic...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8597
artyon: artyon: artyon:

 

[pete]

funny how everyone is all about 'thinking outside the box', without bothering to think inside the box...

pete

 

[Kalicombat]

Quote:"In reference to EPAK some have felt that it can be, while others have decided to leave it "as is". Granted, the individuals mentioned took two different routes in that regard to making changes. German by adding elements of other arts to Kenpo; Sullivan and LeRoux by concentrating it."

First and foremost, what the IKCA teaches is not EPAK. Period, no wiggle room at all. Secondly, Im not familiar enough with Mr. Germans curriculum to make an educated opinion one way or the other.

Lets look at it from another perspective. As I understand it, the kenpo that SGM Parker was taught had very few techniques
and very few forms. Very basic for what we EPAK practitioners of today would consider. Then, SGM Parker took that knowledge, expanded it, adapted it, made it grow, spread, not only in volume but in effectiveness. He added principles, concepts, experiences, formualted thought, and created EPAK. Then, when EPAK was still in it's infancy relatively speaking, Mr. Sullivan and Leroux took the system that Ed Parker created, stripped it, condensed it, or as some may say, refined it, to pretty much what it was before SGM Parker put his flavor to it. Thus, undoing all the work that SGM Parker put forth to create his system. Sullivan and Leroux didnt create anything except an association to blanket their stripped down version of what they knew at the time they broke off. Did they know the entire EPAK system as we know it today???? Different takes from opponents and proponents abound. It makes no difference to me weather they did or not, but,they are not current in the EPAK system, what with having refined it to their 55 techniques, 2 or so sets, and one long form, I dont think they'd have continued to keep up with EPAK.

Different strokes for different folks, however, I cant seem to understand why they use SGM Parker references in their promotions, and his image on their website when they undid all that he created. If its a rose call it one, but if its something else entirely, dont call it a rose.

I will go so far as to say that it is my opinion, that the IKCA curriculum is no better or worse then Ed Hutchisons Dragon Kenpo. Both are something completely different from EPAK, and neither should ever be represented as being EPAk, either by suggestion or out-and-out lies. One final point. IF the IKCA was so adamant about wanting to condense the vast knowledge that they had ammassed to make it more user friendly and easily learned for the benefit of all the IKCA students of the future, why did they have to use the black gi, the tiger and dragon references, the similar but not exact patch as the IKKA crest, why did they use SGM Parker quotes in their ads, pics of SGM Parker and Mr. Sullivan in the 60's in their ads? Would they be the success today had they totally went forth with their own merit, not riding the coat tails of SGM Parker and the system he created? Highly Doubtful. Guess we'll never know.


Yours in Kenpo,
Gary Catherman

 

[bzarnett]

IMHO, if you feel that the foundation of American Kenpo Karate is flawed, than evolution is the correct term. If you feel the foundation is stable and correct, than refinement is a better term.

For me, the logic and philosophy of American Kenpo is the foundation and not the self-defense techniques, freestyle, forms, and sets. I agree that these are critical exercises in American Kenpo and have been well-developed but they are not the foundation. I personally subscribe to the Skip Hancock Kenposcope approach where Attitude, Logic, Basics, and Fitness are the foundation.

In a poorly explained example, the inclusion of BJJ-like ground fighting would be a refinement to my concept of positions in American Kenpo.

Cheers!

 

[USKS1]

Hello,

I don't post a lot on here, but I think it is kinda funny all the talk about who is doing what Mr Parker passed on, and who is not.

How many schools teach the exact AK ciricullum as outlined in Infinite insights volume 5? And if so, why was Mr Parker continually modifying his system if he felt it was finished and ready to set into stone?.. The arts were not created in a vacuum or meant to stay in one.
Are you going to tell me that Mr Sullivan and Mr LeRoux do not know the American Kenpo system as Ed Parker taught it?

If I understand correctly the entire system is taught by 5th degree BB.

I have seen the footage of Mr Parker promoting Mr Sullivan, Mr Quinones, and Mr LeRoux to 7th, 6th, and 5th degree BB respectively. This was in the late 80's. Would Mr Parker promote someone who was not qualified??

How much did American Kenpo change between then and Mr Parkers passing?

My core system is Kajukenbo. I started studying with the IKCA about a year ago to look at the system and add what I felt was good to my current ciricullum. I see us all as Kenpo family, and whatever was good from AK or IKCA, Lima Lama or any other system of Kenpo would fit well into my teaching and development as a Kenpo instructor. I have also studied AK so I do have a pretty good idea of what to look for as a comparison.

Over the course of that year I have found the IKCA material to be as solid as anything else out there, and in reality do you need 156, 200, 300 or 600 techniques to be rounded?? When do the cookie cutter techniques end and when does spontanaety start?

Does the IKCA teach the neutral bow differently from AK? Not from the comparisons I have seen.

That goes for the other footwork, transitions, stance changing, punches, kicks etc... They may not train every basic found in AK, but what they have chosen to teach is nearly identical to AK, but the ciricullum is indeed streamlined.

I have never heard Mr Sullivan or LeRoux call the IKCA program American Kenpo. I have heard it called Chinese Kenpo, or modern Kenpo, based in American Kenpo, but not AK.. How could it not have AK influence.. Mr Parker was their teacher!

What I have learned about them is that they treat their association members with respect, and provide feedback to school owners like myself on programs and business ideas to help our schools grow.. How many of the existing Kenpo associations / orgainizations do that? Most give you a id card, take your check, and add you to an instructor list.. That's about it. Oh I forgot, they also send out your renewal letter once a year.

Why do they refer to Mr Parker in print and in the history and photo segments of thier site?? Pretty easy, he was their teacher. I would call that respect and giving credit where credit is due, not riding on his name for their benefit.

But is it still Kenpo??
Don't just take the word of people who post on the net, look for yourself and check out the videos or better yet, if you are in California go stop by and talk with them yourself.... It may not be the giant that AK has evolved into, but it is Kenpo. It works for me..

Keep up the hard training.

Dean

 

[MJS]

How many schools teach the exact AK ciricullum as outlined in Infinite insights volume 5? And if so, why was Mr Parker continually modifying his system if he felt it was finished and ready to set into stone?.. The arts were not created in a vacuum or meant to stay in one.

Yes, Parker was making mods to the system, so if thats the case, why do people look down on others for making their own mods? Almost sounds like a double standard...its ok for him but not ok for someone else??

Mike

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

Yes, Parker was making mods to the system, so if thats the case, why do people look down on others for making their own mods? Almost sounds like a double standard...its ok for him but not ok for someone else??

Mike

Not everyone is qualified to make the changes, if they were, Kenpo would still be in a pristine state, problem is, most think they're qualified, and I've seen plenty who shouldn't be teaching at all, but do.

Let me give you an example. Are you going to let someone with a few years under their belt as a mechanic make major structural changes to your car's chassis and suspension, OR, given the oppurtunity and same price, will you take it to the engineer that designed your car, or worked as an apprentice with that engineer?

DarK LorD