Loyalty to the EPAK system?

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:

1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).

2) Mr. Parker also openly told people to be as creative as possible. Creativity doesn't have the same limitations as 'tailoring'. Something can be created "from scratch" and therefore be very different from the "starting material".

3) Mr. Parker never remained "traditional" and altered his sytem several times.

4) Mr. Parker didn't remain 'loyal' to the system he studied or EPAK would have never been created.

5) Mr. Parker's son studies Kenpo from what he has referred to in print as a "progressive source" and not his father's original version. The term 'progressive' is particularly powerful in this instance.

6) Kenpo is just information. How does one remain loyal to information? Information is supposed to serve mankind, not vice versa.

7) Kenpo is often referred to as a fighting science or technology. Most of the best science and technology on the planet constantly changes and improves. If being Loyal means never changing, how does Kenpo keep up?

8) Some of the best ideas have remained largely unchanged for centuries. Examples: The wheel, simple machines, pulleys and levers, the arch, etc. Is EPAK in the same category?

With all that said what does loyalty to EPAK truly mean? To me I remain loyal by teaching the curriculum MOSTLY as I learned it but with additions that I feel are useful in certain places. I don't, however, delete any material. I only add it. But I don't feel this is an adequate way to describe the loyalty.

What does 'loyalty to the EPAK system' mean to you?

 

[simon]

i think being loyal is to always respect the the ways of the original teachers and the teachers before us, keeping up the good name of the art and being helpful to the future instructors by setting them a good example.
the techniques may change or vary to keep up with times, but the principles behind them and the strategies will always be their, without the principles the art is just a keep fit class.
samurai never had hand guns and cars an elevators and all the modern technology, yet jujitsu instructors still teach modern and traditional jujitsu because all the principles are still as valid today as they ever were.
kenpo is exactly the same, mr parker knew that things would change over time, so laid out the principles to how things should be done, such as marriage of gravity and back up mass, they are not techs but principles to be applied to techs, sticking to these and being corteuos and respectful to others means you are being loyal to the art.

 

[bushi jon]

As a kenpo/ highbreed guy I welcome change in anything and the way to honor your teacher is to become better than them.

 

[HKphooey]

Is EPAK a system or a way of thinking?

For me it is to remain true to the philosophy of EPAK. What is that philosophy? That is another question in itself. For me it is ever-learning with an open mind, question all that you do, understand why/what you are doing, continuing to look for not yet understood principles in your material.

Good question.

 

[Flying Crane]

K3,

I think you have made some extremely valid observations.

Personally, I feel that when we learn an art, we learn it the best that we can and make it our own. Of course we are not perfect and there is always more to learn and a better understanding to be gained, but all we can do is do our best.

I also believe very strongly that this means we must feel liberated to make changes that seem reasonable and appropriate. This might include adding things, and also deleting things. Ultimately, as your own art, you are responsible to think for yourself and make your own decisions about it.

Nothing in the martial arts, including kenpo, was Divinely inspired. This stuff was created by people who, while they were certainly talented and intelligent and insightful, were not perfect, and were not gods. It most certainly can be changed. And making changes, even radical changes, does not imply disloyalty or dishonor to the art. It means you have taken your lessons and you seek to improve things so that it is best for you. Someday your own students will do the same.

 

[HKphooey]

I pulled out one of the Infinite Insights into Kenpo books (#5) to go over some material for class and came across the dedication in the front of the book. I think it nails things right on the head.

Dedication from IIIK #5:

To all readers of my five volume series of Infinite Insights into Kenpo, who, with an open mind, have taken on the challenge to examine, investigate, explore, expand, and expound on the principles , and concepts offered therein, I dedicate this book.

My loyalty to kenpo has a lot to do with that statement.


We were given the map, now it is up to us to find the treasures within the art.

 

[Flying Crane]

...to examine, investigate, explore, expand, and expound on the principles , and concepts offered therein...

That pretty much sums it up, straight from the horse's mouth.

It's easy to become dogmatic about things, and want to preserve them exactly how they were done before us. We tend to put the founders up on a pedestal and assume that they could do no wrong and what they created was perfect. But the founders (in this case, Mr. Parker), knew that it was not perfect (at least not for everyone), and we all need to make the art our own, which includes making appropriate changes.

 

[Bode]

We were given the map, now it is up to us to find the treasures within the art.

This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....

PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.

 

[HKphooey]

This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....

PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.

Agree with you on some of this. After 18+ years of training I will not claim to have every element of EPAK (that was never my intention). I agree that tailoring/exploring to early will rob a student of learning a solid understanding of the art. The base art is still needed. But to say that one way is the only way, contricts us with limitations. Even GM Parker began to change a system he did not fully understand. Should he have waited until he was a Grandmaster in his intial art before creating EPAK? Would he have learned many of the aspects of EPAK if he stayed with his initial studies? We will never know.

Training and exploring for many years would not be stumbling, it would be a journey. A journey with no end.

This is what I enjoy about kenpo... the different views we have.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that. It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training. To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence he created the monster....

PS> I didn't know the man. When I speak of him it is through Doc.

This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.

I agree, anyone learning the martial arts needs a good teacher to learn it properly. You cannot figure out many of the subtleties on your own, without a solid background of training.

I haven't studied EPAK "commercial" system so I cannot comment on it with any specifics.

I have tried to keep an open mind regarding SL4, and I have tried to respectfully engage in discussions to understand where SL4 is coming from, and what their angle is. Dave's posts have been informative and respectful, and have done more than anyone else to help me understand this, and gain some respect for what the SL4 approach is and attempts to accomplish.

But this position that you have taken implies that what you do in SL4 is the only way it can be done with any quality, and everyone else is junk.

SL4 may be an outstanding method of kenpo. Having never studied it, I don't know first hand, but I am willing to accept that on face value until it is proven otherwise to me. But this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage, strikes me as pure, myopic arrogance.

 

[Bode]

This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.
But this position that you have taken implies that what you do in SL4 is the only way it can be done with any quality, and everyone else is junk.

SL4 may be an outstanding method of kenpo. Having never studied it, I don't know first hand, but I am willing to accept that on face value until it is proven otherwise to me. But this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage, strikes me as pure, myopic arrogance.

I know I can write some things online that come off incorrectly. Doc does the same thing. I fully admit this, however, in this case I have no idea how you moved from my statements to "this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage" is beyond me.

I never even mentioned SL4. Would this have been an issue if you didn't know I was a student of Doc's? Did I criticize your Kenpo? No... you inferred, somehow, that was talking about you and being critical of your art or everyone's art in general.

There are many great Kenpo teachers around. Many not so great. Ultimately it is up to you as a student to decide the value of the information. If you feel you are receiving good information then I applaud your teacher.

This is where I am in complete disagreement with the people from the SL4 camp.

The people in the SL4 camp are not critical of any one teacher. I can't recall ever bagging on anybody. In fact, I challend you to find a post with me talking about someones technique in a crude way.
What we do strive for is excellance on every level. Robert hit the nail on the head on KenpoNet when he said this referring to Doc and SL4:

"[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]And I'm pretty damn sure that what REALLY pisses off some readers is, a) his insistence on taking the time to build a solid foundation; b) his indictment of the, "get rich quick," strain in contemporary martial arts; c) his identification of the difference between tailoring kenpo and bull****, between real creativity and fingerpainting."
[/FONT]

Flying Crane, I have appreciated a lot of your efforts to understand SL4. You've remained civil and approachable. But please, do not read into my statements as speaking of your teacher or skill. This is just the way we, in SL4, see the Martial Arts world. It is your right to disagree, but please don't extrapolate meaning from a statement that has none.

Training and exploring for many years would not be stumbling, it would be a journey. A journey with no end.

True. I guess my point is that we should be standing on the shoulders of those who stood before us and not re-discovering what they had already learned. That way the art progresses with each generation. We should all end up being as good as our teachers or better.

This is what I enjoy about kenpo... the different views we have.

Yes. And until fists meet flesh or there is a battle royal between schools we will have no clue who speaks the most truth. That's the fun of it. On the internet it's all absent of the physical element.

If am am coming off to anyone as arrogant or critical of your art, please, PM me. I will gladly try to remedy the problem. I have no intention of discrediting your art. Indeed I go out of my way to make sure I don't.

 

[Flying Crane]

I know I can write some things online that come off incorrectly. Doc does the same thing. I fully admit this, however, in this case I have no idea how you moved from my statements to "this position that essentially states that what everyone else does is garbage" is beyond me.

I never even mentioned SL4. Would this have been an issue if you didn't know I was a student of Doc's? Did I criticize your Kenpo? No... you inferred, somehow, that was talking about you and being critical of your art or everyone's art in general.

There are many great Kenpo teachers around. Many not so great. Ultimately it is up to you as a student to decide the value of the information. If you feel you are receiving good information then I applaud your teacher.



The people in the SL4 camp are not critical of any one teacher. I can't recall ever bagging on anybody. In fact, I challend you to find a post with me talking about someones technique in a crude way.
What we do strive for is excellance on every level. Robert hit the nail on the head on KenpoNet when he said this referring to Doc and SL4:



Flying Crane, I have appreciated a lot of your efforts to understand SL4. You've remained civil and approachable. But please, do not read into my statements as speaking of your teacher or skill. This is just the way we, in SL4, see the Martial Arts world. It is your right to disagree, but please don't extrapolate meaning from a statement that has none.


True. I guess my point is that we should be standing on the shoulders of those who stood before us and not re-discovering what they had already learned. That way the art progresses with each generation. We should all end up being as good as our teachers or better.


Yes. And until fists meet flesh or there is a battle royal between schools we will have no clue who speaks the most truth. That's the fun of it. On the internet it's all absent of the physical element.

If am am coming off to anyone as arrogant or critical of your art, please, PM me. I will gladly try to remedy the problem. I have no intention of discrediting your art. Indeed I go out of my way to make sure I don't.

Alright, if I misunderstood your intent, I apologise and I don't want to start a fight with anybody. I've said it before: things get misunderstood on the internet, I hope this is just another unfortunate case of that. I do know that you are with Doc in SL4, so I guess it was my assumption that your comments are coming from that base. It looked like there was an agenda, but if I'm wrong in that assumption, again I apologize.

This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge.[quote/]

This sounds to me like a blast at much of the other Parker kenpo outside of SL4. Again, I haven't trained EPAK, so I don't have any vested interest in its reputation, but I am sure there are well trained and highly skilled EPAK people out there who understand what they are doing with rearranging and tailoring and such. It just came off sounding like you are writing them all off as a bunch of stumbling nitwits. If this was not your intended message, I apologize for my reaction based on a misinterpretation.

It would take any of us years to "discover" simple aspects that a good teacher could show you in an hour of training.[quote/]

Of course we all need good teachers. Again, knowing your background, it sounded like you were implying that SL4 method is the only method thru which someone can find and become a good teacher. Another wrong interpretation on my part? ok, fair enough, my apologys.

To the credit of the martial public, Ed Parker did encourage tailoring and exploration. In essence, he created the monster...[quote/]

OK, i'll admit, i'm not sure i understand what you mean by putting these two sentences together. On the surface, they seem to contradict each other. But the last sentence sounds to me like an indictment of all EPAK outside of SL4 (again, it is hard for me to separate your comments from SL4, knowing this is where you are).

Bode, in all sincerity, if I took your message the wrong way, you have my full apology. I don't come here to start fights, or look for fights to join in. If someone says something that I feel is just plain wrong, I will speak up, however. If I overreacted in this case, again, full apology.

Having trained in the Tracy system, I am not even sure if that would be considered a "Commercial" or "motion -based" kenpo. Knowing the large chain of schools under Tracys, I guess it is commercial in that respect, but I don't know if, based on Doc's definition of "motion-based", Tracys would fall within that definition. I see a lot of comments aimed at the "motion based" kenpo, I wonder if that includes me, or if it is really aimed at the kenpo that was developed after the Tracys split from Mr. Parker.

As I have posted a number of times in the past, I am tremendously critical of the Tracys system. I believe it is a very cumbersome system to train in its complete form. But I also believe it has a lot of good things buried under the not-so-good things. I have made an extensive attempt to modify the system to focus on the good things and eliminate the not so good things. This is for myself. I have not taught this to anyone, maybe someday I will, tho.

I am sure I do not have the depth of understanding, nor the experience that people like Doc, and probably yourself, have. I don't fool myself, I have a very realistic view of my own skill level. Compared to some, I am pretty good, but compared to many, I am not so good. I don't kid myself. But I do my best, and try to make my kenpo as good as it can be for me. And I believe in my heart that the changes that I have made are an improvement. One thing I am not afraid to do is make changes where they seem appropriate, and encourage others to do the same. I don't make these changes for no good reason, however. I look at the Tracys techniques, how I understand them, I think hard about it and I really ask myself if they seem realistic or are based on fantasy. If not realistic, they need to be changed or eliminated. But again, this is for me, and I am sure others would argue against it.

When I was in college back in about 1991 and was a pure Kenpoist, I met a kid (exchange student at my college) from Mexico City. He was a Tae Kwon Do guy and his goal was to be in the Mexican Olympic Tae Kwon Do team. At the time, my teachers and I had a habit of taking pot shots at Tae Kwon Do. My teachers had trained the art, one of them was a TKD blackbelt as well, so I took their word for it that TKD was no good. Well, I worked out and sparred a couple of times with this kid, and he cleaned me out pretty thoroughly. And this wasn't heavily padded Olympic style sparring. We wore no pads and he was fast and hit hard and was working these textbook-perfect techniques on me and it just blew me away. Kenpo was supposed to be SO MUCH BETTER than TKD. What went wrong? It took me a long time to be able to admit to myself, much less on a public internet forum, that this kid really beat me soundly. I was in denial about it for a long time, and I missed an opportunity to keep training with this kid and learn some things from him. My pride didn't allow it. At any rate, it really opened my eyes to what someone could do with TKD. It didn't make me interested in studying the art, but I certainly gained a lot of respect for what different people can do with different arts. I think about this a lot, especially when it looks to me like someone is making broad generalizations about the superiority of one art over another.

Anyway, no harm intended, I'm ready to move forward and hope this incident doesn't come between us and prevent fruitful dialog in the future.

 

[Bode]

This sounds to me like a blast at much of the other Parker kenpo outside of SL4. Again, I haven't trained EPAK, so I don't have any vested interest in its reputation, but I am sure there are well trained and highly skilled EPAK people out there who understand what they are doing with rearranging and tailoring and such. It just came off sounding like you are writing them all off as a bunch of stumbling nitwits. If this was not your intended message, I apologize for my reaction based on a misinterpretation.

The intention was to blast the people who train for a few years and decide they are going to branch out on their own and discover the treasures for themselves. This is true arrogance. They leave their teacher with the belief that they will be able to simply happen upon the knowledge with deep enough exploration. Richard Feynman didn't win the nobel prize after studying physics for two years.
And yes, their are great EPAK people out there who have earned the right to tailor and rearrange. I am not denying that. SL4 doesn't own this right. Labounty, Hebler, Conatster, Trejo.... there is a list.

Of course we all need good teachers. Again, knowing your background, it sounded like you were implying that SL4 method is the only method thru which someone can find and become a good teacher. Another wrong interpretation on my part? ok, fair enough, my apologys.

Had nothing to do with SL4. As I said, a "good teacher". Not Doc. Not me. No one specific. Hopefully we all have the ability to recognize a good teacher when we see one and seek them out.

OK, i'll admit, i'm not sure i understand what you mean by putting these two sentences together. On the surface, they seem to contradict each other. But the last sentence sounds to me like an indictment of all EPAK outside of SL4 (again, it is hard for me to separate your comments from SL4, knowing this is where you are).

I can see why. Here is what I meant. Ed Parker actually encouraged tailoring and exploration amongst his students. It ended up being a double edged sword. While it brought a lot of students to his schools from other arts and made him wealthy, it also made many people believe they had the ability to tailor. As if anyone can do it. The truth is that very few have earned that right. The monster is in reference to all the people running around believing they are ready to alter/change or tailor the art to a high degree. He created it by encouraging it.

Having trained in the Tracy system, I am not even sure if that would be considered a "Commercial" or "motion -based" kenpo. Knowing the large chain of schools under Tracys, I guess it is commercial in that respect, but I don't know if, based on Doc's definition of "motion-based", Tracys would fall within that definition. I see a lot of comments aimed at the "motion based" kenpo, I wonder if that includes me, or if it is really aimed at the kenpo that was developed after the Tracys split from Mr. Parker.

I don't even attempt to classify Tracy's Kenpo. That's not my area of expertise. The Tracy's split off when EP was in his Chinese Kenpo phase. That means what they learned from EP was bounded by that time period.

When I was in college back in about 1991 and was a pure Kenpoist, I met a kid (exchange student at my college) from Mexico City. He was a Tae Kwon Do guy and his goal was to be in the Mexican Olympic Tae Kwon Do team. At the time, my teachers and I had a habit of taking pot shots at Tae Kwon Do. My teachers had trained the art, one of them was a TKD blackbelt as well, so I took their word for it that TKD was no good. Well, I worked out and sparred a couple of times with this kid, and he cleaned me out pretty thoroughly. And this wasn't heavily padded Olympic style sparring. We wore no pads and he was fast and hit hard and was working these textbook-perfect techniques on me and it just blew me away. Kenpo was supposed to be SO MUCH BETTER than TKD. What went wrong? It took me a long time to be able to admit to myself, much less on a public internet forum, that this kid really beat me soundly. I was in denial about it for a long time, and I missed an opportunity to keep training with this kid and learn some things from him. My pride didn't allow it. At any rate, it really opened my eyes to what someone could do with TKD. It didn't make me interested in studying the art, but I certainly gained a lot of respect for what different people can do with different arts. I think about this a lot, especially when it looks to me like someone is making broad generalizations about the superiority of one art over another.

Bottom line. He had a good teacher and was probably physically gifted. I would never study Kenpo just because it's kenpo. I would look at the teacher and ask myself, "Can he teach me how to fight better than the TKD instructor down the street." If the answer is no, then I wouldn't be doing Kenpo right now.
In the absence of ANY good teacher. Teaching yourself is acceptable. Striving to put logic before "coolness".

I respect your forthrightness and I try to understand everyone's perspective. I know there is a lot of bad history with SL4 and how some of the articles/posts have come off in the past, so I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Hope my post clarifies some of my statements.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

This is where Ed Parker's creation has it's downfall. People believe they can discover the treasures embedded in the art without a competant teacher. That by exploring, rearranging, tailoring, etc... they can somehow stumble upon the knowledge. I simply do not believe that.

Where are you getting this from? In my experience with the "motion kenpo" world this has simply not been the case at large. Who thinks that they can discover the treasures of kenpo without a competent instructor? Who has stated this and where is it documented?

And by exploration someone will invariably stumble upon something. Alot of the worlds best inventions were discovered/created by accident. It's not the most efficient way of learning by far, but it does happen. The whole "reverse motion" concept of "motion kenpo" as you call it was a self-admitted accident on Mr. Parker's part by being too lazy to switch a tape reel so he played it backwards and saw it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thanks for your reply, Bode. Cheers.

 

[Doc]

Where are you getting this from? In my experience with the "motion kenpo" world this has simply not been the case at large. Who thinks that they can discover the treasures of kenpo without a competent instructor? Who has stated this and where is it documented?

Mr. Parker promoted this concept generationally. You may not have seen it in your genration/region, etc but your teacher(s) or their teacher(s) certainly did, and what they all taught was a product of that commercial philosophy that Ed Parker introduced out of necessity to proliferate ONE aspect of his many arts. But Mr. Parker had more than one version of his art and more than one functioning philosphy and all of them were not created equally.

Most don't even realize that the majority of the black belts on the original family tree were not even original Parker students or even his black belts. Only a handful of people actually began as white belts and advanced to black under Mr. Parker, and this was at a time when making black in a year was common.

Most came from another style. Parker gave them this commercial conceptual approach to allow them to make the art functional as they felt comfortable. Their interpretation is what they learned and taught, and these variables continue to play themselves out downstream in their various lineages today.

People like Myself, or a Steve LaBounty, and others never even learned the 'motion based system,' or had any desire to do so. We recognized it for what it is, but were already involved in what we knew was good material that was already working quite nicely. This whole 'expansion thing' was for the strip mall crowd and the kids were beginning to pour in, (and still remain the base of cash flow). Doesn't mean there aren't some really good people out there, but like pigeon English, they're working from a short alphabet, and that's why the good ones explore other arts to suppliment the commercial system which by design doesn't contain certain information. If its in there, it came from the teacher not the system.

I remember meeting a well known Grandmaster from a different Kenpo Perspective on the east coast many years ago before he passed away. He told me, "You know Parker went Hollywood." I said, "No sir, he went commercial." He said, "You're right."

And by exploration someone will invariably stumble upon something. Alot of the worlds best inventions were discovered/created by accident. It's not the most efficient way of learning by far, but it does happen. The whole "reverse motion" concept of "motion kenpo" as you call it was a self-admitted accident on Mr. Parker's part by being too lazy to switch a tape reel so he played it backwards and saw it.

First "reverse motion" yielded the motion based commercial art. Some might argue that was not exactly the best thing, but was indeed lucrative to those who chose to make that their focus.

I agree that singular things may be found by accident, but those who accidently 'stumbled' upon such things did so with a wealth of information already. You don't 'stumble' upon complex mathematical methodologies without a knowledge of some fairly complex math to begin with. Nobody 'discovered' how to send a man to the moon, and Einstein didn't discover E=mc2, he reasoned it from a previous knowledge base. Context is everything.

Lastly I think, despite my continuous pounding of the subject, there is no singular Kenpo in the Ed Parker Lineage that wholly shares philosophies or execution methodologies, and the sooner we realize for better or worse that "Kenpo" is as generic as "karate," the better these discussions will become.

 

[Michael Billings]

I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo. I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven. Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.

The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated. If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts. There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique. An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction. The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.

Loyalty to the EPAK system??? Which system, which evolution??? Remember, unless you were there, you don't even know what you do not know. Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising. There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated. Be honest with yourself, and the only way you can judge ability is not on a keyboard, but getting out and seeing the other guys out there doing a similar art. Check out other arts, they all have something to teach (even if it is how NOT to do something). You should look for the positive and see what others may have, even if it is one move, one lock, one strike or throw. Mind like a parachute; don't go down in flames with it unopened.

-Michael

 

[MJS]

Alot of people have posted about loyalty to the EPAK system. I have thought about this for as long as I've studied Kenpo and continue to wonder what exactly is this loyalty. I feel that I'm loyal but I don't have what I feel is an adequate definition given EPAK's history. Here are a few points to consider for discussion:

1) Mr. Parker openly encouraged people to tailor the art. Tailoring would imply minor alterations but not an entire overhaul (just like the clothing the analogy comes from).

2) Mr. Parker also openly told people to be as creative as possible. Creativity doesn't have the same limitations as 'tailoring'. Something can be created "from scratch" and therefore be very different from the "starting material".

3) Mr. Parker never remained "traditional" and altered his sytem several times.

4) Mr. Parker didn't remain 'loyal' to the system he studied or EPAK would have never been created.

5) Mr. Parker's son studies Kenpo from what he has referred to in print as a "progressive source" and not his father's original version. The term 'progressive' is particularly powerful in this instance.

6) Kenpo is just information. How does one remain loyal to information? Information is supposed to serve mankind, not vice versa.

7) Kenpo is often referred to as a fighting science or technology. Most of the best science and technology on the planet constantly changes and improves. If being Loyal means never changing, how does Kenpo keep up?

8) Some of the best ideas have remained largely unchanged for centuries. Examples: The wheel, simple machines, pulleys and levers, the arch, etc. Is EPAK in the same category?

With all that said what does loyalty to EPAK truly mean? To me I remain loyal by teaching the curriculum MOSTLY as I learned it but with additions that I feel are useful in certain places. I don't, however, delete any material. I only add it. But I don't feel this is an adequate way to describe the loyalty.

What does 'loyalty to the EPAK system' mean to you?

Great thread James! Oddly enough, I had a conversation with Clyde last night and we were speaking of people making changes in the art and rather than running off and create something because "X" move, technique, etc. would not work for them, try to find out how you can make it work and perhaps where the link to understanding the move, isn't being made. I'll address the above comments below.

1) Now, its probably not in the best interest to make a change if the material is not understood. I may have a hard time making Squatting Sacrafice work, so should I go and change it, creating a 'new' technique or should I find someone who can show me how to make it work? Now if I was teaching someone and they were having a difficult time, due to a height disadvantage, perhaps, they could make a slight adjustment in footwork, etc. to compensate, but they're still not changing the tech. per se.

2) Should people create something new? There are people out there that have created new techs. and dropped old ones.

3) Yes he did. I'm sure he made changes from the way he learned.

4) Agreed

5) Would he still be considered loyal?

6) True

7) Thats a good point. Things are always evolving. Cars, medicine, research, etc. Maybe those that made a change were on to something.

8) So if its not broke don't fix it, so to speak.

We all have to go with the hand that was dealt to us. Unless we move to an area, such as the Meca of Kenpo..So Cal...we just have to do the best we can with our training. SL4, commercial, motion, or whatever else we want to call it, what matters most, IMHO, is, is what we're doing working for us?

 

[HKphooey]

I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo. I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven. Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.

The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated. If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts. There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique. An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction. The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.

Loyalty to the EPAK system??? Which system, which evolution??? Remember, unless you were there, you don't even know what you do not know. Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising. There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated. Be honest with yourself, and the only way you can judge ability is not on a keyboard, but getting out and seeing the other guys out there doing a similar art. Check out other arts, they all have something to teach (even if it is how NOT to do something). You should look for the positive and see what others may have, even if it is one move, one lock, one strike or throw. Mind like a parachute; don't go down in flames with it unopened.

-Michael

Good stuff Mr. Billings!

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I understand the above posts and some of the confusion re: the system and history, or evolution, of Kenpo. I think the Hawaiian phase evolved into a more complete Chinese System, which was basically technique driven. Hence the Tracy model and my own Chinese Kenpo background in the NCKKA.

The concept or principle driven system evolved, as Mr. Parker's art got more and more sophisticated. If there is a "commercial" system, or as I might prefer, a "motion-based" system, it evolved from the techniques as utilized to teach the principles or concepts. There were some techniques that stayed in because they were "cool", others may have been removed due to difficulty at that level, or because they were repetitive and the same thing was being taught via a better technique. An example of this would be Inward Defense being rearranged to Delayed Sword, or Outward Defense being rearranged into Sword of Destruction. The principles made more logical sense in the application of the more modern techniques, although either of the old ones were and are, perfectly functional.

Loyalty to the EPAK system??? Which system, which evolution??? Remember, unless you were there, you don't even know what you do not know. Thus making it egotistical to judge other's arts by a yardstick of your own devising. There is something to be learned everywhere, you just have to be open to it, willing to challenge your own understanding of your art, then even harder, here is someone who challenges your teacher's understanding of the art ... that often is just not tolerated. Be honest with yourself, and the only way you can judge ability is not on a keyboard, but getting out and seeing the other guys out there doing a similar art. Check out other arts, they all have something to teach (even if it is how NOT to do something). You should look for the positive and see what others may have, even if it is one move, one lock, one strike or throw. Mind like a parachute; don't go down in flames with it unopened.

-Michael

Great stuff especially the last paragraph!