Ed Parker was wrong?

[Sigung86]

From the Holy Tome of the First Church of the Immaculate Misconception and Presumptuous Assumption.

How many angels may ye have dancing upon the head of a pin?

:shrug:

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry that I took the issue seriously and wrote what I thought. I'll try not to do it again.

Don't do that, this forum is for sharing information as well as opinions.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...

I'd have to agree with Mr. Billings and say unless someone contacts Mr. Sullivan we'll probably never know.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?

I certainly hope none, or the technique seriously needs to be changed.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

How many times have you as a student been taught something and incorporated it into your kenpo only to find out that you aren't doing it exactly like you were supposed to? Well unless you learned the 10th degree version from day one you will fall into this category. Who knows if those guys were even doing it right. Then there is always the possiblity that Mr. Parker made a mistake....... ooooooooohhhh a human making a mistake..... say it ain't so.

Kenpo_Cory
I don't question the effectiveness because I've used it, I've seen it used and without a shadow of a doubt, I know it works

That's great, then your training has served its basic function that of self preservation. However, we all know that a car will run without engine oil, but that doesn't mean that you want to do it like that for long. Every process has an optimum level of efficiency, those who study the art long term are generally the individuals who are seeking this optimum level. This journey requires you to evaluate the most minute details of your movement, even the sequence and methods in which you execute the movements. You can discover all these things yourself, if you live that long, but the most temporally-economic method would be to find a knowledgeable instructor and ask questions. If you find yourself in an environment that seems very fundamentalist (i.e. the reason we do this is because it was taught this way by the FOUNDER and no other way is permissable), I would be a little worried. Times change, things change. Mr. Parker didn't like several of the techniques or forms the way they were written, quite honestly he rarely did them that way. So if Parker didn't like them or do them that way, then why should those sequences become the holy scripture of kenpo?

I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...

Of course you do, because it threatens your precious tradition.

Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?

Aaaah, I always enjoy the sense of superiority that you Tatum guys try to throw in everyones face. I was beginning to wonder if you were going to say anything, and alas I was not disappointed for there it was waiting at the bottom. :shrug:
Please see the statement about fundamentalism.

Have a great kenpo day.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Origin. posted by Kaith Rustaz
I have heard that some kenpo techniques flawed, so as to make students think.
GoldenDragons one of the seniors on MT, he might have some insite.

There are several very good posts that have illustrated several insights. We must consider that there are a number of things that could have happened. To get down to the bottom of this question will be impossible since two of the three persons in question are not with us anymore.

My feelings without more factual information on this question are this....

1) Ed Parker was not perfect and he made several changes/updates from the early '50's till the time he passed away..... and if would have been able to spend another 10 years, I believe that he would have made even more as new insights would come to his attention, sufficient research taken then implication as he has done so many times in the past. If any of us could take a "time machine" back to this era..... we all may have had something to say about what they were doing as well! Mr. Parker did a good job (in my opinion of leaving us with a tremendously better art .... than what he had to start with).

2) Since we don't know what the "students" were doing that violated "Bruce Lee's" opinion..... we can only GUESS as to whether he was right or wrong.
Possibly the students were not doing it as it was supposed to be done in the first place <<OR>> He had actually caught something that the students Instructor (Chuck Sullivan) had not learned or taught yet, <<OR>> this could be something that Ed Parker had not either touched on yet or possibly had any knowledge of at that time.

3) Ed Parker taught different ideas to many, but I have not seen any wrong techniques in the system just individuals that may not understand the how's or whys of the techniques. Students should by default always ask and seek to know all there is to know about a technique and/or its possible many applications.

4) We also know that Bruce Lee was a very cocky young individual that has become "larger than life" due to the movies and such. This also could have been his bold unique way to "gain attention" to illustrate his point of view on the issue.

The question to me is, was everyone in the room doing this movement wrong in "Lee's opinion" or was it just a couple of students.... by the way what rank were the students in question.

LOL..... just my thoughts on this. Don't read too much extra into the statement otherwise you can go nuts with assumptions or start down fruitless paths that don't matter.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Kenpo Yahoo:

My, "precious tradition?" What the hell are you talking about? Please show me exactly where I asserted Mr. Parker's--or anybody else's--papal infallibility.

I'm going to do us all a favor and avoid responding to that weevily little bit about Mr. Tatum.

I'm sorry that you find the discussion of ideas and different understandings offensive.

You might find it works better if you advance your own ideas, offer your own analyses, pick out your own evidence.

 

[pete]

who said anything about wimps? or anything about intellect whatsoever? and what is the deal with any inferences made to the feminine form? i'm a bit confused.

humility is a better barometer for inner light; don't confuse bombastic pomposity with intellect. seems like you were trying to make a point, maybe too hard...

... and he looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry...

everyone makes mistakes, the enlightened learn from them. As did Ed, Bruce, Abraham, Martin, and John...

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Times change, things change. Mr. Parker didn't like several of the techniques or forms the way they were written, quite honestly he rarely did them that way. So if Parker didn't like them or do them that way, then why should those sequences become the holy scripture of kenpo?

I agree with you on this one. I can't say we do EPAK because my instructor has changed quite a few things. However, all of the principles and concepts remain universal.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Pete:

Did it ever occur that writing, "lighten up, francis," might just be a wee bit patronizing? Or that accusing others of...oh. never mind. I notice that you haven't dealt with the issues raised.

Every time something like this comes up, the accusation goes out unto all lands that the matter divides neatly into "traditionalists," and, "innovators," with the innovators putting themselves on the side of God, truth, and the good old American way.

Claiming that people like me and Clyde are "traditionalists," is hilarious. More to the point, this "either/or," is a simplistic way to see the issue. And remarks about folks' instructors remains a convenient way to duck out on thinking about anything--not to mention building up one's own ego, which was my point in the first place.

An example? Well, if you'll read the first post I wrote, I seem to be a member of a church that thinks its founder led a fallible and human life...hm.

An example of something I think flawed? Well, read my posts. But here're a couple: it's, "analysis," dammit, not "analyization;" those Pledges are increasingly repulsive; kenpo claims a fundamental conformity with the way the Universe works that I wonder about more and more.

Sorry, gotta go now. Awaiting the lightning bolt from the cloudless sky...

 

[Cruentus]

I just don't understand what the big deal is.

Everyone is inclined to make a mistake, even the greatest of "masters." Making mistakes is how we all learn. I'm sure Mr. Parker made a ton of mistakes in his lifetime, as I am sure did Mr. Lee. I see nothing wrong with that.

Nobody's perfect.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The simple fact is, EP did.

Otherwise Kenpo at the time of his death would have been the same as when it was introduced.

He continued to evolve the art right up to the time of his passing, just like so many other inovators.



The big questions here is:

What technique is in question?

Was it later 'fixed' by EP or is it still in the core?

Unless we know this, everythings just needless speculation and that leads to lost tempers, etc.

:asian:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz


The big questions here is:

What technique is in question?

Was it later 'fixed' by EP or is it still in the core?

Unless we know this, everythings just needless speculation and that leads to lost tempers, etc.

:asian: [/B]

You're correct. Unless we know what tech. is being questioned, the debate is going nowhere. The only way to know, is to call Chuck Sullivan.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Every time something like this comes up, the accusation goes out unto all lands that the matter divides neatly into "traditionalists," and, "innovators," with the innovators putting themselves on the side of God, truth, and the good old American way.

You're right. We are all different, we train different, have different beliefs, so of course the debate is going to split.

Claiming that people like me and Clyde are "traditionalists," is hilarious. More to the point, this "either/or," is a simplistic way to see the issue. And remarks about folks' instructors remains a convenient way to duck out on thinking about anything--not to mention building up one's own ego, which was my point in the first place.

LOL! Well Rob, I gotta disagree with this one. You are probably one of the biggest advocates of tradition on this forum. For example, look at the thread "Lights Out" You thought that this type of training was not necessary---why? Cuz its not tradition. As for the remarks about the Inst.--- Well, I'd rather not comment on that one!

An example? Well, if you'll read the first post I wrote, I seem to be a member of a church that thinks its founder led a fallible and human life...hm.

Wait a min. I thought that there was only 1 church---the church of the cross trainers?? LOL

Sorry, gotta go now. Awaiting the lightning bolt from the cloudless sky... [/B]

What????

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mike:

I am sorry, but please show me where I've argued for tradition just for tradition's sake. The discussion you mention certainly isn't an example--so where is it?

This makes about as much sense as my arguing that you're just changing things for the sake of changing things, to show off how innovative you are. I'm not arguing that by any means, and I don't think you are, either.

Again: it's easy to separate everybody into simply-opposed camps. That's not how things actually work, and that's not what I think, either.

In fact, I'd argue that in such a topic as this, both "pro," and, "anti," represent weird distortions of reality.

In a certain sense, actually I couldn't care less whether Mr. Parker ever blotted a line. That's not remotely the issue.

The issue, I think, lies in the sorts of questions already mentioned.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Do you think we can start an "ARGUE ZONE" Category for portions of strings that go off topic ... like this one and turn into flame matches...???? .....

Hey.......Flame Port...... that could be it's title.....
:rofl:

:asian:

 

[Seig]

Ok Guys,
I don't want to have to "officially" put on my moderator hat. Please keep friendly, polite, respectfull, and on topic. If you want to throw rocks at each other and argue, take it to PM, Email, Chat, or IM.
Thanks,
Seig

 

[Bill Lear]

Originally posted by Seig

Ok Guys,
I don't want to have to "officially" put on my moderator hat.

Noooooo! Not the Mod. Hat! Anything but that!

 

[KenpoDave]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
could anybody point out exactly which techniques, as they presently more or less stand, are flawed? and how they are?

Interesting topic.

If my memory is correct, the principle violated was that of crossing the center of the body to block a punch, i.e the right inward block to the right punch in Five Swords.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Huh, That's funny. I think we just had a big discussion about that on the Kenpo Technical Forum. I believe the title was something about hand isolations in form 1. That's interesting to say the least.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Wow, it sure got quite. :shrug:

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo
Wow, it sure got quite. :shrug:

I think you mean Quiet!