other kenpo

[kevin kilroe]

how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different? What about schools that teach say, 50 techniques to 1st black? or modern kenpo? (I am not exactly sure what that is yet.)Is there only one right way? If Mr. Parker were still alive, would the system be the same, or would it still be evolving, and in what direction? More techniques, less techniques? If tailoring is such an important principle, is tailoring the number of techniques taught wrong? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

Humbly,

kevin kilroe

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kevin kilroe
how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different? What about schools that teach say, 50 techniques to 1st black? or modern kenpo? (I am not exactly sure what that is yet.)Is there only one right way? If Mr. Parker were still alive, would the system be the same, or would it still be evolving, and in what direction? More techniques, less techniques? If tailoring is such an important principle, is tailoring the number of techniques taught wrong? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

Humbly,

kevin kilroe

There was already a similar thread to this posted on page 3 of the Kenpo/General forum. However, maybe we can continue the discussion. I do not know much about KC and how they run their org. As for if the system would be the same? Parker changed the system from when he first learned it, so yes, I'm sure that it would continue to evolve with the times. As for the amount of tech? That is also something that has been discussed on a previous thread. Seeing that this varies from school to school, I guess it just depends on the Inst. I tend to think that the reason the number of tech. is lessened, is to be able to promote the students at a faster rate. Some people in the arts, are more concerned with how fast they advance in rank, rather than have a good understanding of what they are doing at their current ranking. I'm not speaking for every school, just from some that I have seen.

Mike

 

[stickarts]

I had the good fortune to study at length with the grandmaster of a system and noted that as he learned and evolved, the system evolved. i have no doubt that it would have kept evolving.
however, at the same time, effective basics and root effective concepts don't change. Some changes that were made were methods that made learning easier.
As far as number of techniques, the larger the number that you try and get a student to memorize for testing, you eventually reach a point where they aren't very good at any of it.
I have a smaller core number of techniques that students are responsible for knowing and performing on their test, but lots of additional techniques are taught in the course of their training.
for us, it has nothing to do with speeding up their ranking, but in narrowing their focus to core material that i want them to be extremely good at.
That is just how i do it. i have seen different approaches with mixed results.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by stickarts
IAs far as number of techniques, the larger the number that you try and get a student to memorize for testing, you eventually reach a point where they aren't very good at any of it.
I have a smaller core number of techniques that students are responsible for knowing and performing on their test, but lots of additional techniques are taught in the course of their training.
for us, it has nothing to do with speeding up their ranking, but in narrowing their focus to core material that i want them to be extremely good at.
That is just how i do it. i have seen different approaches with mixed results.

And that way of doing it seems to be working great!!!

I remember an old saying from you Frank--- Quality over Quantity!!!

Mike

 

[stickarts]

thank you sir!

 

[WhiteTiger]

This is a VERY OLD argument.

I am not an "EPAK" kenpoist, nor am I an expert in the subject, however I don't believe you have to be to understand the concepts which SGM Parker expressed in his teachings. In my opinion SGM Parker's goal was to provide the student with the Dictionary of Motion.

What do I mean by that? Show the student what is possible, how to analyze, deconstruct, and reconstruct self defense techniques. Give them the tools to learn on their own.

SGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this. Some think this is not enough others too much. The fact is that not everyone has the same ability for intuitive reasoning, some need more information than others to reach the next logical step. So instruction is "Tailored" to the student, but you must still maintain a baseline, a point of reference, to measure the individual success of any student.

Too suggest that the evolution of Kenpo would mean the reduction in the minimum number of techniques is CRAZY! To draw that argument to its extreme conclusion you would have to say that Kenpo would eventually become a system of no techniques.

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by WhiteTiger

SGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this.

Then how do you relate that to the 154 base technique system laid out by Mr. Parker?

 

[clapping_tiger]

Originally posted by kevin kilroe
how do EPAK practitioners feel about Karate Connection?
Mr. Sullivan knew Mr. Parker very well from what I have read. Is it better, worse, or just different?

It is different. It is not intended to be Ed Parker's American Kenpo, that is why they call what they teach Chinese Kenpo, so there is no confusion on what they are teaching. They are teaching the same basic principles with fewer techniques. There is not as much repetition as in EPAK.

]Originally posted by WhiteTigerSGM Parker seemed very clear that a minimum of 240 techniques were required to accomplish this. Some think this is not enough others too much. The fact is that not everyone has the same ability for intuitive reasoning, some need more information than others to reach the next logical step. So instruction is "Tailored" to the student, but you must still maintain a baseline, a point of reference, to measure the individual success of any student.

I have never heard about this. Could you please explain.

Too suggest that the evolution of Kenpo would mean the reduction in the minimum number of techniques is CRAZY! To draw that argument to its extreme conclusion you would have to say that Kenpo would eventually become a system of no techniques.

I would have to disagree. Once given the basic tools necessary, it is best to explore the art. I feel (once again this is just my opinion)that it is better to have fewer techniques and be allowed to play around with what was given. To work on 240 techniques and get them down cold would take many many many years. Now what if most of those techniques were basicly the same except a few minor changes here and there. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut out those minor changes and build the ability to think and react to any given situation or possible scenario on your own. In a sense makeing the art your own and tailor it to your body and your strong points. It seems to me that 240 techniques is quite excessive and (meaning no disrespect to anyone)would be best for those who cannot think for themselves and need to be shown what to to for any possible outcome.

I don't know if this will come across right, I was having a hard time putting my thoughts into words. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

"To work on 240 techniques and get them down cold would take many many many years."

Noooo! Not that! Long hard study!

 

[WhiteTiger]

My mistake, 240 was an error on my part.
However my point is still valid. Teach the student the "basic vocabulary" of motion, teach them to analyze their motion, deconstruct, and reconstruct.

What I mean by deconstruct, and reconstruct, is to enable the student to break down techniques into their intergral parts, analyze how the individual parts work (th motion involved), and fit with other parts, and then recombine the parts into a whole.

This way the student learns more than just a self-defense technique but also how to construct their own techniques, using bits of motion from their "Dictionary".

If you have an "Abridged Dictionary" your vocabulary will be inferior.

 

[Kenpomachine]

Break the words and there's still the same amount of letters in both dictionaries. So as long as you keep the 24 letters in the alphabet, you have all the posible words even though you may not know them at first.

The letters would be your basics, principles, etc, and the words the techniques. My point, people doing 55 techniques can have the same knowledge, even though they'll have to elaborate and study more later on they own. And the base should be better for being able to develop the material later.

That is, Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan know their stuff and are great masters. I think their kenpo is also great.

IMHO, is not the system but the person doing it which matters.

 

[WhiteTiger]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
That is, Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan know their stuff and are great masters. I think their kenpo is also great.

Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques? Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision? Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another. I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques. I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.

Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?

I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click".

 

[ProfessorKenpo]

Originally posted by WhiteTiger
Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques? Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision? Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another. I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques. I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.

Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?

I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click".

Vic was my first Kenpo instructor in 1986. I learned maybe 55 techniques thru Brown. If he knew the whole system, he didn't teach it then either. I didn't know a third of what they were doing in West LA and found my current instructor in 1990 to fill in the gaps. I was an example of needing to learn the entire curriculum to make it click. I made it to 3rd and beyond LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[ob2c]

Guys, instead of rehashing the old 55 vs. 550 (Or whatever), let's look at this from a different perspective. What, exactly, are they missing in your opinion? What is lacking besides the extra techniques?

They can get the principles in 55 techs. But what about working the defenses to common attacks in different deminsions? Is this addressed adequately? EX: defense against a rear bear hug, arms pined. You can defend in depth- Captured Twigs. In width- Crushing Hammer. In height- squeezing the peach. Is this concept addressed in the IKCA carriculum? And if not, is it that big a deal?

Before you jump on that question, consider that everyone can't get to a good school to learn Kenpo. The IKCA course may be a good place to start, with the idea of going to the full course later. It may also be all some people want, for variouse reasons- not necessarily because they don't want to work at it. Another possibility, and one I've considered, is doing a course like the IKCA at the same time I learn another art. After over a year without a steady Kenpo training partner I'm having to reasses my options, and they may be one viable option (though I'm really struggling with the idea of leaving my current school).

One other thing, I heard they really did wel at Nationals, which speaks well of them.

All I'm saying is that we should look at this from all the different perspectives before condemning them because they do fewer techniques.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by WhiteTiger
Did Vic LeRoux and Chuck Sullivan originally learn a reduced number of techniques? Or did they choose to teach fewer techniques as a marketing decision? Or perhaps they personally found that they could make the intuative jump from one set of movements to another. I think some that have advanced to senior ranks have forgotten that not everyone has their ability level, or hours on end to explore and discover the "untaught" techniques. I understand that it is not possible to teach every possible grouping of movements, but I also know that some people need to have more pieces of the puzzle in place before they can make out what the picture is.

Out of every 100 students which begin training, how many will attain Black Belt, out of those how many go on to 3rd Degree, and out of those how many will become senior masters themselves one day?

I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click".

Dam that was good.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by ob2c
Before you jump on that question, consider that everyone can't get to a good school to learn Kenpo. The IKCA course may be a good place to start, with the idea of going to the full course later. It may also be all some people want, for variouse reasons- not necessarily because they don't want to work at it. All I'm saying is that we should look at this from all the different perspectives before condemning them because they do fewer techniques.

I neither endorse nor condemn them for the number of techniques they teach, but this argument of "what if there isn't a kenpo school nearby?" is not valid IF you're going to accept ranking from your video experience, no matter how much it is "augmented."

What if you want to study a particular physical activity like football offered at a specialty college out of your state. Maybe there is some kind of football down the street but its not the kind at the college you want. Do you think if you got the video that you should have the same "rank status" as those who trained everyday with the coach and played in games? Or maybe you should take the video expereince for what it is and not expect rank. Lastly, do you think you could line up with the the team that learned in-person and played for 4 years?

You can only get away with such ideas in a "hypothetical environment." "You punch and I could have done this to you." Take back the football analogy and replace it with grappling, wrestling, boxing, or a circus trapeze act. Would you expect to be competent in those areas which are NOT as complex as Kenpo self-defense? Just a thought.

 

[bdparsons]

Originally posted by WhiteTiger
I am not saying that it is wrong to teach fewer techniques, what I am saying is for every technique you chose to eliminate from your program, there is a student who needed to learn it, in order to "make things click".

I understand where you are coming from, but I would postulate a different perspective: The crux does not lie in the fact that techniques are eliminated, but rather whether any principles or concepts have been eliminated. If in fact all the principles and concepts are present in a given number of techniques be it 10, 55 or 154; is not the system present? Kenpo is not a number, it is a method.

Here's one for all of us Kenpo speculators: Let's say a reasonably intelligent individual is taught the principles and concepts from Kenpo without being taught specific techniques. Then task them to come up with a series of techniques that incorporate all they have been taught. I wonder how many techniques we would end up with? The answers would probably be all over the board (or is it bored). I suspect that the end result would be less not more, but that's just my opinion nothing more.

Food for thought.

Respects,
Bill Parsons

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by bdparsons
I understand where you are coming from, but I would postulate a different perspective: The crux does not lie in the fact that techniques are eliminated, but rather whether any principles or concepts have been eliminated. If in fact all the principles and concepts are present in a given number of techniques be it 10, 55 or 154; is not the system present? Kenpo is not a number, it is a method.

Here's one for all of us Kenpo speculators: Let's say a reasonably intelligent individual is taught the principles and concepts from Kenpo without being taught specific techniques. Then task them to come up with a series of techniques that incorporate all they have been taught. I wonder how many techniques we would end up with? The answers would probably be all over the board (or is it bored). I suspect that the end result would be less not more, but that's just my opinion nothing more.

Food for thought.

Respects,
Bill Parsons

Excellant point of course. But I marvel at those who suggests that the number of techniques found represented in the "manuals" is somehow based on Mr. Parker's need for a specific number to allow students to express the conceptual ideas he expounded. Could it be that the number of techniques were driven, at least in part, by other reasons? Chuck Sullivan doesn't seem to think you need as many or as complicated, whereas Al Tracy is the opposite with more additions and variations than what Parker settled on. The reality is the "business" of kenpo influneced all of them in some manner. Good or bad depends on whose teaching and what is being taught. Just a thought.

 

[ob2c]

Doc, you make some good points with your football analogy. And I agree to some extent- the guy who puts in the time and effort to really learn a more extensive program would probably be better at most any discipline. However:

Some may love Kenpo, but for variouse reasons may not be able to attend a regular Kenpo school. If there is a good school in another style nearby that they can train with, and that style is compatable with Kenpo, I fail to see the problem with taking both and making the best of your situation. As for ranking, I care less. Rank is only as respected as the entity that confers it, and really only meaningful in that organization any how. If I end up going that route, I'll test for rank through them. But as a practical matter I would usually wear the rank of the school I train with here. Would you have a person in this situation do nothing, or maybe just do the other art?

Another possibility, some people don't want as much out of the martial arts as others. I'm not saying that the IKCA shorts any one, but that some may not, for whatever their reasons, want to do a full course. Hypothetically, let's say that they just want to compete at higher levels. They see that the IKCA folks do pretty well in competition, and decide to learn the shorter system. I don't have a problem with that.

Yet another possibility- some peoples schedules are extremely hectic and irregular. Making it to anything on a regular basis might be impossible. Video training and testing are a good, maybe the only, alternative.

I could go on, but I'll make my point here. I think the IKCA fills a need for a lot of people. They have filled a void in the market. As to whether they adequately meet the needs of their customers, only they (the customers) can answer that, unles someone can point to something that is being taught that is incorrect or dangerous.

 

[ob2c]

I wanted to answer this in its own post:

Originally posted by Doc
Do you think if you got the video that you should have the same "rank status" as those who trained everyday with the coach and played in games?

On the football field or on the street, your rank or standing doesn't mean anything. All that matters is the scoreboard at the end of the game.

I'm not against ranking systems, belts in particular. But I do think we sometimes get too hung up on them. Again, the rank is only as good as the style that confers it, the school that teaches it, and the practitioner that uses it- in reverse order of importance. My opinion, feel free to differ.