Should the Sets be required for promotion?
- Thread starter kenpo3631
- Start date
You got it. It's like Mr. Parker's friend ... you know ... "Sam Ting". Just another vehicle for learning and teaching.
-MB
UKS-Texas
-MB
UKS-Texas
Kalicombat
Green Belt
kenpo3631,
The sets are part of the curriculum, therefore, they should be required as part of each respective belt level and tested on. If you eliminate them from testing today, then maybe short one next year, then long one, the following year. What about belt pledges, sayings, etc... Many instructors I have met dont even know these let alone require their students too. Just more parring down, cutting back. The system is out there, in its entirety, for all to learn if they so desire. Why not take full advantage of all that EPAK has to offer?
This goes back to learning the techniques on the opposite side. If a person is not required to prove he or she can do it, chances are they wont on their own. This topic has been hashed, re hashed, etc. but it is about the same thing, losing little parts of the system.
Just my opinion,
Gary Catherman, Kenpoist.
The sets are part of the curriculum, therefore, they should be required as part of each respective belt level and tested on. If you eliminate them from testing today, then maybe short one next year, then long one, the following year. What about belt pledges, sayings, etc... Many instructors I have met dont even know these let alone require their students too. Just more parring down, cutting back. The system is out there, in its entirety, for all to learn if they so desire. Why not take full advantage of all that EPAK has to offer?
This goes back to learning the techniques on the opposite side. If a person is not required to prove he or she can do it, chances are they wont on their own. This topic has been hashed, re hashed, etc. but it is about the same thing, losing little parts of the system.
Just my opinion,
Gary Catherman, Kenpoist.
Z
Zeke
Guest
Well Gary, this is one of those "things" were we will have agree to disagree
Your point of wiev is a valued one and one I totally agreed with some years ago. I will try to explain what changed it for me. Now I have always been against losing parts of the system(s) and since my first Kenpo instructor did Tracy Kenpo and I over the years converted to EPAK, suddenly I found myself with an HUGE curriculum that I felt that I HAD to keep. And my students had to be able to do everything that I had learned over the years Why? Because it all had value - Yes I agreed with that and still do - but more and more I came to realise I was only going though the motions and NOT doing what my students were paying me for.
They pay me for giving them a system of practical self-defence, that WILL work for them when they need it. What they don't pay me for is turning all of them into instructor-to-be-some-day. (Now some of them will became instructors and they will learn the whole system) In reality you don't need to be able to do kicking set 2 to be a good martial artist . Do you need to know it as an instructor to be a good instructor? Well you should at least know of it , but are it gonna make you any better, Well......
Today in my mind I sort of put everything I have (learned) into 3 catagories:
1.) Selfdefence - This is where I put most of the techniques, some knifework and "other" things in. Other things by the way could be something like doing Kicking set 1 with an opponent.
2.) Sportfighting - That is everything from Knock-down to MMA-fighting just as long as it has some kind rulebook.
3.) Martial arts - This is where I put the forms , the sets , and all the rest . Some of it I pactise a lot - like the forms - and some of it I don't do very offen , Like the sets.
By dividing all my infomation into these 3 catogories I find it a lot easier to decide what part of the kenposystem has the most practical value for the student and at the same time I don't feel quite so "guilty" for not being able to give the same amount of time to all parts of the systems.
Once again just my reasons for not requiring the sets as part of belt testing
Take care
Zeke
Your point of wiev is a valued one and one I totally agreed with some years ago. I will try to explain what changed it for me. Now I have always been against losing parts of the system(s) and since my first Kenpo instructor did Tracy Kenpo and I over the years converted to EPAK, suddenly I found myself with an HUGE curriculum that I felt that I HAD to keep. And my students had to be able to do everything that I had learned over the years Why? Because it all had value - Yes I agreed with that and still do - but more and more I came to realise I was only going though the motions and NOT doing what my students were paying me for. They pay me for giving them a system of practical self-defence, that WILL work for them when they need it. What they don't pay me for is turning all of them into instructor-to-be-some-day. (Now some of them will became instructors and they will learn the whole system) In reality you don't need to be able to do kicking set 2 to be a good martial artist . Do you need to know it as an instructor to be a good instructor? Well you should at least know of it , but are it gonna make you any better, Well......
Today in my mind I sort of put everything I have (learned) into 3 catagories:
1.) Selfdefence - This is where I put most of the techniques, some knifework and "other" things in. Other things by the way could be something like doing Kicking set 1 with an opponent.
2.) Sportfighting - That is everything from Knock-down to MMA-fighting just as long as it has some kind rulebook.
3.) Martial arts - This is where I put the forms , the sets , and all the rest . Some of it I pactise a lot - like the forms - and some of it I don't do very offen , Like the sets.
By dividing all my infomation into these 3 catogories I find it a lot easier to decide what part of the kenposystem has the most practical value for the student and at the same time I don't feel quite so "guilty" for not being able to give the same amount of time to all parts of the systems.
Once again just my reasons for not requiring the sets as part of belt testing
Take care
Zeke
... and Kenpo is good at tolerating the differences of opinion. Something about "Mind like a parachute".
-Michael
UKS-Texas
-Michael
UKS-Texas
OP
kenpo3631
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #26
The only sets that were created by Mr. Parker were the Star Block and Finger Set #1. The rest were injected into the system later on.
Heck, it is my understanding (and this comes from what I consider to be a reputable source), that when Mr. Parker was asked to do the sets, other than the ones that he created, he would have someone who learned the set from another instructor do it and then he would interject his insights. IMO your statement is just that... "opinion".
Honestly, do you believe that Short and Long Form #1 or any form for that matter would be eliminated from the system? The forms teach us far too much to be eliminated. Heck, they were referred to as Mr. Parker's "babies".
To clear the air, I never said that the sets should be eliminated from the system. I merely stated that if they are intended to be an exercise in basics, a teaching tool, or a practice tool for students, then why should it be mandatory to test students on them? I never at any time stated that they had no value. Let me ask you this, and ask your instructor too...did you or they, ever see Mr. Parker do Kicking Set #2? Finger Set #2? Blocking Set #2? even as to demonstrate them?...
Further, Mr. Parker used to say, I know I heard it for myself, that "Sets are nothing more then mental masturbation." You can make up your own set and noone could tell you that it is wrong, so long as you could back it up with some kind of sound explanation.
I do know all of the sets, I learned them, tested on them and even still teach some of them. I feel that they are tools, tools to give the student to help them get better at their basics. If you want to test them on it...great. However I do not feel that it is a neccesary evil to do so.:asian:
Goldendragon7
Grandmaster
I keep hearing this..... and it may be in the technical sense true .... however to discount that Ed Parker allowed "other insertions" of sets and didn't know them or just put them in the system for no reason is "TOTALLY RIDICULOUS" he also had inserted the kicking set # 1 developed by Tom Kelly, does that mean that you should not teach it because ED PARKER DIDN'T FROM SCRATCH DEVELOP IT!!! Then you may as well start studying another system because many, many different instructors had a hand in the evolution of the system, INCLUDING one very popular instructor (which some consider to be a reputable source) that is on the circuit today.... or...... is it only that if he was involved that it is legit? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
If he didn't find value in it why did he interject his insights and waste his time then? Maybe he wanted to see what version had reached this area? How do you know he didn't know it for sure?
Right, Just my opinion!
:asian:
OP
kenpo3631
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #28
I am not saying that he didn't know them. Heck, anyone can know something. However, say I create a new blocking set, do you know what I was thinking or feeling when I created it. The answer is NO! So can you honestly give the "true" interpretation of the set, NO, just your own. You would only be able to inject your own theories into what was being performed. So why couldn't Mr. Parker do the same?
Did I ever say that we shouldn't teach the sets....NO. As for the Kicking Set #1, I previously posted that it should be utilized just like Finger Set #1 and Star Block.
Well, that I won't deny. Most had a firm grasp of the system and others not so firm. So as in any art you'll find some stuff that just doesn't jive. By the way..who put the chicken kick into the technique Checking the Storm? I recall it was changed back by Mr. Parker to the front/side kick version...why? Did the person who wrote the manual have a firm grasp on the system...hmmmm, or was it someone trying to be a creative genius? My point is that that version made it into the system and was obviously taught...Mr. Parker knew about it...how long did it go on like that for? The point is it was a change not made by EP but it by someone who influenced the system yet maybe didn't have a firm grasp of what he was doing.
Ouch, the gloves come off....
I have one question though...did you ever ask that same instructor for help, clarification, instruction or explanation on anything referring to Kenpo?
The reputable person I referred to by the way....it was Mr. Parker himself...
