New Kenpo Article

[Steve Howard]

http://kenporaw.bravepages.com/Paper2.htm

 

[Goldendragon7]

A good article with the exception of a few minor aspects. I have been saying much of this for years. Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me).

good work

:asian:

 

[brianhunter]

Good article, I enjoyed reading it. Nice to know how what you are doing comes about from time to time. I kept thinking about the movie Shrek and how he said "Ogres are like onions" while reading it thought
Good read though! Nice to see guys breaking it down for the masses!

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
A good article with the exception of a few minor aspects. I have been saying much of this for years. Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me).

good work

:asian:

I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment. Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?!?!?!?

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by jeffkyle
I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment. Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?!?!?!?

Originally posted by jeffkyle
I don't understand where you are coming from with your "era" comment. Could you elaborate a bit more..Pleeeeeaaaaassssee????!!?

Ok, here is the original post............

Origin. posted by GoldenDragon7
"Once one puts all into perspective and looks at what was going on in what "era" it becomes completely clear (at least to me)".

Let's examine the article, and I'll give my personal takes - opinions on each section............

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Is Your Kenpo Real? (Part II)
By Stephen D. Howard:
Chinese Kenpo (A.k.a. “Tracys’”, Tracys’ Variants”, numerous pre-1980’s Parker curriculums) vs. American Kenpo (A.k.a. “AK”,
“EPAK”, “Parker Kenpo” & numerous variations, alterations, incarnations defined after Mr. Parker’s passing).

This has been one of the longest-running and counter-productive debates in the modern era of our art. Driven by politics and personalities more than principles, it has also been the ugliest
(and probably the most unnecessary) of debates.

Ok Pre-1980's Tracy Kenpo vs. Pre-Dec,15, 1990, Ed Parker's American Kenpo.

Yes, this debate has existed for around 25 years since the Tracy's broke away from Ed Parker. This however should be expected in virtually any unhappy split (look at most divorces) lol, just a fact of life. Ugly, yes, unnecessary... I would disagree since the truth of the matter at the time (during the early era of the split), was not understood by the masses and very confusing. But I do agree that any difficult battle or split doesn't do anyone any good during or near the beginning, until the big picture is seen and the reasoning from both sides comes out.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Thankfully, in recent years, senior practitioners on both sides of the issue have started to set aside their personal differences to work toward
the overall advancement of the art. Occasions such as GOE I and GOE II and similar events have
gone a long way in beginning to mend the rift that
has existed for so long in the Kenpo community.

Agreed, time to move on and heal.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
It is now time for those of us who are juniors in
the Kenpo community to continue what the seniors
have started and end the feud that has only served to weaken our status as America’s premier martial art!

Amen.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
To that end, this article will examine the REAL
differences between the two major divisions of Mr.
Parker’s art. It will also investigate the
reasons for those differences and why the matter
of whether you practice “Chinese” or “American”
Kenpo is not in and of itself the defining factor
in whether or not your Kenpo is “real.”

This quote has been used by numerous practitioners
on both sides to argue the various Merits / deficiencies of either subsystem.

Ok, here I would say that Since Ed Parker was the original Teacher to the Tracy Brothers, and they broke away..... They (Tracy's) are the "sub-system", NOT Ed Parker. Ed Parker was the CORE SYSTEM (even though he evolved and rearranged it several times), that was broken away from.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
The statement: “Chinese” and “American” Kenpo "ARE" different arts, is probably the single-most misleading statement ever uttered by any member of our system!

Why? Because it has been misinterpreted and
misused over and over to continue an argument
which should have ended years ago and which never
had much real merit. Let me state this very
clearly (here comes the part that some people
aren’t going to like, so pay attention):

“Chinese” and “American” Kenpo are "NOT" different
Arts—they are different curriculums that lead to different expressions of the same base art.

Absolutely, see prior paragraph.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
To truly understand this, one must first realize
from where Mr. Parker drew his inspiration and his
genius. First, he drew from the wisdom of those
who were his seniors in knowledge and experience
in the martial arts. Second, and even more
importantly, he spent immeasurable amounts of time
in continued, repeated physical practice of the
Kenpo techniques themselves. It was this intimate
knowledge of the techniques that was the primary
source of his insight. For, while the techniques
themselves do not constitute the end all and be of
what is Kenpo, they are the vehicles by which the
principles, concepts and theories of the art are
ingrained in the practitioner.

Someone once said, “a true martial art is like an
onion.” Throughout his life, Mr. Parker continued
to peel back layers of this “onion” to reveal more
and more of the beauty of Kenpo. But “revealing”
is not the same as “inventing” or “creating.”

It is good to note that as the "Onion" was slowly peeled away, this took time, months and even years which as we now look back on now, we notice certain "eras of development" and within those "eras" we find different individuals that had access only to that information that was current.

Many of the early instructors (for one reason or another) broke away and took with them "their" understanding of the material and many started studios and organizations with this knowledge.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Regardless of which incarnation of the art was
being taught, the major wellspring of Mr. Parker’s
Kenpo was the original techniques. All of the
principles and concepts (with one or two notable
exceptions) were always present in the techniques
at some level.

I think this minimizes a little too much the statement that "All" (with the exception of 1 or 2 exceptions) of the principles and concepts were present. I agree that they indeed "WERE PRESENT" but if not defined, explained and brought to
everyone's attention, then for all practical purposes they didn't exist to us consciously. As the Art evolved these WERE found, put into print and expanded upon through seminars or manuals to the current students (mostly in the 80's), but much of this
'latest" material was not easily available for those of earlier
eras that had left Ed Parker or only saw him rarely.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
If Chinese and American Kenpo truly operated on
different principles and theories, then it would
be logical to assume that those differences would
be reflected in the techniques of their respective
curriculums.

A comparison of the two major curriculums (Tracys’
and American 24) clearly shows this is "not" the
case, and quickly dispels the myth that it is the
techniques (and, therefore, the general combat
theory) that separate the two divisions of the
art.

So what then, was Mr. Parker referring to when he
gave the “10%” analogy?

He was referring to a difference in teaching
method and in teaching attitude. It was a change
from a traditional, technique-driven curriculum to
a modern, concept-driven curriculum. The question
then becomes “Why would Mr. Parker change his
curriculum and teaching method?” After all, Mr.
Parker himself came from a very traditional martial arts background, and traditional training
methods had produced some of the fiercest, most
talented martial artists of that generation. And
throughout his life, Mr. Parker retained certain
very traditional attitudes.

I would add, that at this point of his life, he realized that "An ounce of Logic was worth a Pound of Tradition". Yes, there was traditions in his past (and he maintained several we still use), however, he also was a progressive thinker and a true analyzer. As these insights came to light, the decisions to make adjustments to methodology and curriculums was needed..... so to modernize and actually create better curriculums vs. pound on trees and thrust your hands in sand, he took a more intelligent avenue towards the Art, thus what we now come to know as revolutionary change from the norm of that time/era (Kenpo as it relates to modern times is the key, like old medicine that has lost effectiveness thru time, or realizing that new thoughts / technology has now produced "new medicines" that are now much more potent than the prior versions or prescriptions). As the new (at that time) business potential was realized .... once again, adjustments through trial and error were established.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
So why did he see a need to change? Two reasons: competition and a desire to cut the learning curve. His primary competition would come in the form of the Tracy brothers (on the traditional / classical side) and Bruce Lee (on the modern / conceptual side).

First of all, whether you like the Tracy's or you
hate them, if you think that they’re the best
things to happen to Kenpo or evil incarnate, you
can’t deny that they know how to market their
product. They spread their version of the art
farther and faster than anyone else did—and the
version they spread was based on a traditional
training model.

No argument there, they "were" the main ones that initially spread the "Kenpo" "name and version they knew from their era" across the globe with both speed and numbers.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Both Mr. Parker and the Tracy's were making their
respective livings teaching Kenpo full-time and
competing for the same pool of students. No one,
including Mr. Parker, was going to out-Tracy the
Tracy's. If both schools were to survive, they
would have to differentiate. While much has been
made of this in the past, it was not, however, the
main reason for the shift in Mr. Parker’s methods.

Once again, this is right on. Clearly, Ed Parker was more focused on the Kenpo System itself rather than the marketing of it (this is one main difference between camps). Not to say that he didn't want several studios or a large following, but his focus was always on the product or his System first. His marketing also became focused on "big names" such as Elvis, and a host of Hollywood Stars, which would in his opinion give great testimony and credibility to American Kenpo and his methods. He believed that the mass numbers would follow with this solid groundwork in place.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Enter Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee disregarded
traditional training methods and ideology. He
rejected pre-arranged techniques and kata. He
rejected the tradition of secretiveness,
exclusiveness and formality that had previously
defined the Chinese martial arts.

Instead he emphasized basic skills and strategies
proven in freestyle, full-contact sparring,
borrowing from whatever system or style that
“worked.” He also fostered an open exchange of
ideas and information between the student and the
teacher. And the American public ate it up. If
Ed Parker was the first to apply Western logic and
scientific method to Eastern martial arts, then
Bruce Lee was the first to infuse the Eastern
martial arts with a big dose of good-old American
“attitude.” The writing was on the wall, and Ed
Parker didn’t fail to see it.

Remember that Ed Parker knew Bruce Lee before the public and it was Ed Parker that offered the vehicle to Lee to showcase his ideas at the Long Beach Internationals. Bruce Lee NEVER had many students. His attitude and rebel-like views were similar to Ed Parker's and the two exchanged view for many hours (especially when Lee actually lived with Parker for several months). When Lee got his intro into Hollywood, he was able to expand his ideas but still never had a great following until after his death when several students organized and carried on his works. His biggest accomplishment was not for Bruce Lee, but rather ALL the martial arts. Lee brought name recognition to the Chinese Arts and the Karate Studios everywhere started pulling in people across the country and world. Of course, Ed Parker was positioned to benefit as well, and did, but it was not intentional.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Part I of this article pointed out that Mr. Parker
was both a product of his times, and a man very
much ahead of his time. In no instance is this
more evident than in the creation of American
Kenpo. The advent of Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do
signaled a change in the attitude of the American
martial artist. This new breed of practitioner
didn’t want ritualized respect or a program which
required 5-10 years (or more) to attain
proficiency. They also wanted a martial art that
was highly personalized. The “fast-food” era was
just around the corner, and there would be no
turning back. The cycle had turned and Mr. Parker
knew he would have to adjust, or be left behind.

Yes, the "fast food" martial Art era was soon to hit, but not necessarily due to Bruce Lee's new training attitude, the "Korean Invasion" in the Mid 70's, had much more to do with the quick rank, less time, belt ranking system than Lee. All these factors had a hand in the evolving of American Martial Arts.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Now, Mr. Parker faced a real dilemma. He had
spent years building his legitimacy and
credibility in the traditional martial arts
community. He didn’t want to lose that. He also
knew that the overwhelming popularity of the new
“formless” martial arts would eventually stabilize
at a level that would peacefully coexist with the
traditional arts.

However, the new philosophy they brought —
techniques that worked NOW and the freedom for the
student to define his art for himself—would change
the face of American martial arts forever. Mr.
Parker needed to address these attitudes without
alienating the rest of the traditional martial
arts community. And he needed to do so in a way
that would carve out a unique niche for his
American Kenpo and set it apart from both his
earlier, traditional art and the newly emerging
non-classical arts, such as JKD.

Yes, now that business was doing extremely well, and with plenty of feedback from all over the county from instructors with studios flocking to join his I.K.K.A., he was constantly aware of the "challenges" presented from all these studios instructors and was able to "brainstorm" with a wide variety of instructors who constantly expressed desires and solutions to various issues such as promotion times, curriculum size and structure, quality control, standardization, marketing, phone responses, etc., etc.. These were more of the real threats that needed immediate attention, not so much the sparse JKD studios.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
To accomplish this goal, Mr. Parker would create a
hybrid philosophy and design a unique curriculum
that took advantage of the strengths of both
schools of thought. Mr. Parker would keep the
techniques and katas that carried the legitimacy
of a traditional system. However, he would
streamline these techniques to only those
representing the most common attacks. In place of
the material he removed from the system, Mr.
Parker would institute a set of concepts that (in
theory) would allow the student to become self corrective and self-adaptive.

Yes, a need to spread out the material base wider than from white belt to green belt was a wise business necessity. It lowered the training time a bit at the lower ranks for some and offered more "time" to engrain basics and skills yet still be able to move the student along thru the system at a good pace. These changes took months to years to implement due to his busy and demanding seminar schedule. Ever increasing were the calls to have seminars with the Founder of the Kenpo System. This was a love / hate relationship. The exposure was awesome yet it hampered some of his projects and was physically and mentally hard on him and his family. Regardless, he knew his calling. Eventually, he would ask a few of us to go with him on some trips in which we spent a lot of time discussing current projects or ideas to help everyone in the system. Out of several of these "trips" were born some of the new additions to the system that are still in place today (such as the dimensional stages of action).

Article by Stephen D.Howard
So, the biggest difference in the two major
subdivisions of the art is in the sheer number of
techniques (or, more correctly, variations upon
techniques) and the framework in which those
techniques are presented, not in the underlying
principles or theories of combat. It is these
differences which define the strengths and
weaknesses of each subsystem.

1) Number of Techniques. The larger number of
techniques in the traditional model translates
into a larger number of possible combat scenarios
and variables addressed during training. They
also provide a great deal of physical practice
that is meant to ingrain specific response
patterns within the student. Many of the
techniques and variations represent different ways
of applying the same response pattern to different
attacks. Therefore, once a student has found the
response pattern(s) his body is most comfortable
with, the student can tailor that pattern to deal
with a wide variety of possible defense scenarios.

Also, the traditional training model does not
address the “what if” phase in the same way as a
conceptual teaching model does. Rather, “what if”
scenarios are answered with physical
illustrations—techniques representing a possible
answer and a model for further exploration.

I would like to point out again, that I don't believe there are 2 subdivisions but rather one (Tracy's). I additionally don't feel that the sheer number of techniques is the main issue. Both systems, have numerous possibilities, Tracy's does have more "written" curriculum (around 600 or so Self Defense Techniques), during that era, Ed Parker made it a point to show how easy it was to alter techniques in many ways and still have a viable move (example: 2 + 2 = 4 or 3 + 1 = 4 or 12 divided by 3 = 4) as stated, where as American Kenpo moved on to teach the "equation formula" along with the base system (which has close to 154 Self Defense Techniques) then later (in the 80's) developed the "Master Keys" and the "3 Phase Concept" of the System which still allow for unlimited "variable expansions" yet not in the base written curriculum. As stated the numerous (600 +) written syllabus (Tracy) does make for more memorized practice for promotion where as the American Kenpo Base is less but has a strong "suggested" possibilities path to follow. The real difference however really lies in the individual instructor in how he "TRAINS" his students. I may have less required in numbers but may actually practice twice as many repetitions and expansions as those that need to memorize over 600. So it is a difference of perspective and training methods that separate some. Both have value, both have reasoning, I personally have learned both and prefer the AK method, and have had much success with my students, but each to his own. They both "CAN" work, if applied well.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
2) Primary transmission of information is through
direct physical experience with the techniques.
If one is trying to achieve physical proficiency
in combat, the benefit here is readily visible.
Proficiency in any physical activity is achieved
primarily through the practice of that physical
activity. For example, if one wishes to become a
proficient trumpeter, one must spend time
practicing the physical rudiments of the trumpet
(notes, scales, arpeggios, etc.). If a baseball
player wants to improve his batting average, he
spends time in the batting cage. (and so on...)

Great Point Mr. Howard!!! I Absolutely agree, repeat, repeat, repeat..... "Practice makes [Permanent] (NOT Perfect as some of you have answered!), yet continual practice while paying close attention to details, makes for Improvement"!!

Article by Stephen D.Howard
3) Primary responsibility for discovery rests upon
the student. In order to achieve “higher” levels
of proficiency and expression in the art, the
student must “peel back the onion” on his own.
One does this by following the same path that Mr.
Parker himself took, by seeking the wisdom of
seniors and spending time in physical practice of
the techniques. While this isn’t necessarily the
fastest path to mastery, the insights gained
through this process generally occur in-line with
the effort and maturity of the individual student.
As such, the student’s level of physical
application either exceeds or mirrors his
conceptual understanding of the art.

While I agree with you in part here, I also feel that a great instructor also shares part responsibility yet leads the student to the well for the water, he can't, nor should he MAKE them drink but to lead, is honorable and responsible.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
1) Number of Techniques. The larger number of
techniques in the traditional training model can
lead to confusion for many students. The
seemingly endless number of techniques and
variations can at times seem overwhelming.
And while there is a “method to the madness,” it
is not always readily apparent, especially at
lower levels of proficiency. Students who haven’t
made the connection between the various techniques
are in real danger of becoming discouraged and
“burning out.” Students who have drawn the
connection between various techniques must
likewise avoid becoming complacent or bored with
the program.

Yes, I use to hear and even observe the problem of which you speak. Too many techniques to "memorize", they would say, followed closely by "Only because they need to extend the students contract to make money". I used to hate hearing that. I was none the less an obstacle to overcome.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
2) Primary transmission of information is through
physical practice of the techniques. While this
method of training can produce great fighters,
those fighters don’t necessarily understand why
they are great fighters. While knowing “why” a
technique works isn’t necessarily important if
your only concern is self-defense, it is extremely
important if you are an instructor. It is also
helpful if one wishes to realize more advanced
applications of the art.

3) Primary responsibility for discovery lies with
the student. Unfortunately, many students
simply won’t make the effort. So, the number
of high-level practitioners will be a relatively
small percentage of overall students.

However, those that do make the effort are easily
recognized.

Bingo, now we get to the question of Belt Rank. To be proficient in Self Defense does one have to have a Black Belt or can this occur at a much lower level? What really does the Black Belt stand for.... a symbol of a warrior or a teacher or something else?
If one achieves much personal gain in the form of self confidence in him/her self, developed a greater sense of humility, discipline in life, developed a more focused or goal oriented perspective, a new outlook towards his fellow man, are not these all claims of the many benefits that we offer through training the martial arts? "

The person who knows how will always be a student, but the person who knows why, will continue to be the instructor".

Article by Stephen D.Howard
1) Number of Techniques. The smaller number of
techniques in the conceptual training model helps
eliminate a possible source of confusion. Also,
by studying fewer techniques, the student
(arguably) learns each technique (and, hopefully,
the associated principles and concepts) “better.”

2) Physical Techniques are accompanied with
Conceptual Explanations. The “why” is taught
alongside the “how.” By assigning clear intent
and purpose to the physical movements, the
student should, in theory, become self-correcting
and physical proficiency should be obtained
sooner.

3) Primary Responsibility for Discovery Lies with
the Instructor. Principles and concepts are
presented openly and up front in their relation to
specific techniques. This can save the student
years of time spent “searching” for these
relationships himself. In theory, more students
will progress to higher levels within the art.

A good example with the emphasis s placed heavily on the quality of a great instructor, but always the student is responsible for their actions and destiny as well (if they don't practice what they have been shown enough then it wouldn't matter "who" teaches them, they will never be any good.). We all pay for excellent training at the studios..... don't we (almost everywhere I go, all I see is "the best", "all American", super master so and so, awesome teacher XXX, Great Grandmaster what's his face, etc., etc.)

Article by Stephen D.Howard
1) Number of Techniques. The smaller number of
techniques used in the conceptual model means that
fewer scenarios/variables are directly addressed.
Whenever techniques are abandoned, one runs the
risk of also losing the information tied to those
techniques. This, in turn, places a great deal of
emphasis on the “what if” phase of the
conceptual model. An individual’s success under
this model is, therefore, directly correlated to
the degree of success with which the “what if”
phase is addressed and is highly variable based on
both the effort and emphasis put forth by the
student and instructor and by his own instructor’s
proficiency and limitations. This can also lead
to students looking for information that was never
missing from the traditional model, but which the
conceptual model sacrificed in favor of
“streamlining” the learning process.

Fortunately the system allows for personal investigation of the "what if" phase. I mean after you are Black Belt for a few years, what else do you have to do for the rest of your life. Kenpo offers a "Lifetime of study" - Yet for the student that only studies for a few months or years, the system also allows for great progress for time committed. The more the commitment, the more the advancement. All depends on you. Wow, what a System! No Deposit, No Return. Constant deposit,......... continual return.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
2) Teaching the “Why” along with the “How.”
Mostly, this is a good thing. However, what must
be understood is that, because Kenpo is
essentially a physical art, proficiency MUST come
through physical practice. NO amount of
conceptual knowledge replaces time spent on the
mat. And the student training under the
conceptual model must take care not to confuse
conceptual knowledge and understanding with
physical proficiency, as often one’s
conceptual knowledge under this model with
outstrip his physical ability.

Can't fault that statement either! No Pain...... er.... I mean..... Train, No Gain. Some will, some won't....... but ALL CAN!
There ain't no easy way, One must chop wood and carry water!

Article by Stephen D.Howard
3) Giving the Student too Much Knowledge. The
danger here is the same as not giving the student
enough knowledge. The student never reaches
higher levels of capability. Not because he
doesn’t know (or doesn’t bother) to look for it
(as might be the case with the traditional-model
student), but because he assumes he already has
all the answers.

However, when taught and practiced correctly,
either method (traditional or conceptual) can lead
a student to proficiency. Neither method is
necessarily more “real” than the other, but each
method is certainly more appropriate to some
students than to others. How then, does a student
decide which method of instruction to follow?
First, one must know what his particular learning
style is. Not all students are conceptual
learners. In fact, most students are not. That
is why the conceptual approach to martial arts
instruction has never surpassed the traditional
training method approach used by most martial arts
systems. However, someone who is a conceptual
learner or who already has a strong physical
understanding of movement (someone who already has
a strong traditional martial arts background or a
strong background in another physical art such as
gymnastics or dance) can benefit greatly from a
conceptual training model.

I read what you said, but the gist is....... "The "fist" of the Warrior, AND the "book" of the Scholar", which means - bottom line is you MUST have "both" Physical and Mental commitment to be ideal.

Article by Stephen D.Howard
Whichever training method you are involved with,
practice it honestly and earnestly and you are
already halfway to ensuring that your Kenpo will
indeed be “real.”
Salute, Stephen D. Howard

Agreed

:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Steve, you have to start writing shorter articles........LOL that is the longest one on record!! WOW


:asian:

 

[jeffkyle]

But you are right! That is Looooooooooong! You almost have to read it in phases as to not lose concentration! LOL!

 

[gman]

Nice article. Post more if you get 'em. I love reading about the history and evolution stuff.

 

[Kirk]

here's one of my favorites .. not kenpo history though

http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/blackbelt/1999/feb99/fig.html

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by jeffkyle
Could you elaborate a bit more, Please?

Did that help you ....... Jeff?

 

[Ninja D]

I'm sure most of you found this, but if not, check it out:


http://kenporaw.bravepages.com/Paper1.htm

 

[Steve Howard]

I wanted to thank Mr. Connaster for his opinions and insights on my recent article. As always, he has pointed out other aspects for my own consideration and benefit as well as illuminating some of the points I was trying to make. Please read his commentary on the article as it makes several valid rebuttals and confirmations and clarifies many things that, for the sake of "brevity" (OK, ok--stop laughing...LOL) I wasn't able to do on my own.

Thanks again.

salute,
Steve Howard

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Did that help you ....... Jeff?

Yes! That helped tremendously! Thanks again!

 

[KenpoDave]

Mr. Conatser, not to beat a dead horse, but when Mr. Howard refers to Tracy's and Parker's as "subsystems" I think he is referring to them both being subsystems of kenpo. I did not understand him to mean that American Kenpo was a subsystem of Mr. Parker's original teachings.

 

[Steve Howard]

Thanks, KenpoDave--that was indeed the premise from which I was working. The major point was that when selecting a curriculum one must be aware of the differences in how that curriculum organizes and presents information (compared to any other curriculum) so as to reap the full benefit from that curriculum. For the sake of space and simplicity I referred to "Chinese" and "American" as subsystems only because most of the different curriculum with which I have had experience are variations on these two major learning models. It wasn't meant to imply that one was necessarily a subsytem of the other, but that they were the two major classifications (subsystems) within the art as a whole.

Thanks,
Steve Howard

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by KenpoDave
When Mr. Howard refers to Tracy's and Parker's as "subsystems" I think he is referring to them both being subsystems of kenpo.

Yes, that is what I believe he was stating as well. I do not share that opinion, Tracy's is a subsystem of Ed Parker's.

Originally posted by KenpoDave
I did not understand him to mean that American Kenpo was a subsystem of Mr. Parker's original teachings.

No, I don't think he was trying to say that either, I "WAS". Ed Parker has always stated that he was given the "keys" to unlock the doors. That is exactly what he did. Ed Parker developed (from his root training what is known to us today as Kenpo) this material was not Chow's strict curriculum (other than the "keys" which were basics and foundational material & ideas). Ed Parker the one that formulated the system that we ALL know today ....... NO ONE ELSE, the Tracy's did in fact break away to expand on their own and do their own version of this .

That is not to say that there were many people that did have influence on Ed Parker however, if you look at the two systems, the mode of movement, technique sequence ideas, principles and many other aspects were formulated by Ed Parker. You don't have to look far to see familiar names such as any of the forms from short & long form's 1 - 5 just to name one example. These were not used by Chow or anyone else but Parker lineage.

So the Tracy system is definitely a sub-product of Ed Parker philosophy and influence (After all, Who was it that promoted the Tracy's anyway) with Tracy modifications and expansions from the time they broke away to date. American Kenpo was just a name change in the 80's to bring more focus specifically to Ed Parker's one and only evolving system, it was the compilation of his experiences under a modernized heading.

:asian:

 

[lonekimono]

Hey Dennis like you said EVERONE has something to say about this, 25 years? and it's still going on.

you know what i don't care, because no one will ever be on the same page, so i just turn the page ( not jimmy page) LZ.
so on we go . this gives me a headache
:rofl:

yours in kenpo