Originally posted by MartialArtsGuy
Doc
"If you want the "system," than I suggest you understand it resides in the intelligent interpretation and credentials of whomever you choose as your teacher."
Could you please list some examples of what an "intelligent interpretation" of the system could be? Maybe examples from techniques? Also, could you give me your opinion on what you consider good credentials to be?
That would be what YOU think not me. What I think only matters if you're my student. I sat with a high ranking well known kenpo teacher in Europe who thougt he saw a kenpoist perform a great Form 5. When he asked my opinion I schrugged my shoulders. I told him I thought it was awful from MY perspective. I also told him when he wanted me to break it down to reality of what does and doesn't work, I'd be more than happy to share what I meant. He took several lessons and discovered almost nothing he did beyond blunt force trauma actually worked as advertised. Now he dislikes me because of what he doesn't know, like it's my fault. Eye of the beholder and to each his own.
Another question (kinda related to above) Excluding SL-4 what are the differences between the AK system outlined in Infinite Insights and the one that you teach?
I teach SubLevel Four kenpo therefore if you exclude it from the conversation, we have none.
I'm asking about the system you use to teach students principles of motion that are tailorable to themselves.
I don't.
I exclude SL-4 because as I understand, it is not flexible for good reasons, and is reserved for advanced students.
Incorrect. SubLevel Four Kenpo is taught from the beginning to beginners. Some have described it as "advanced." For me it's just "kenpo" as I know it. All my students regardless of level have good basics, move well, and are effective with what they do. It is required. No exception, no kids, and no crying. There's no crying in Kenpo! (With respects to Tom Hanks)
If I misunderstood something about your last post or your training system. I apologize. Like I said, I'm trying to grasp the "why's" behind the system and I ask you about your system because I'm looking for parallels between the two.
Lineage, taught by Parker. Most of the techniques, sets, forms, and uniforms. Philosophically different and not based on motion.
I'm not sure if I'm saying what I'm trying to say but this is mind boggling. I almost feel like I'm fishing in a pond that MIGHT have no fish.
You could be right.
If it helps you to get were I'm coming from, I'll state the following.
I have always seen the system as a conceptual base of ideas. I dont take it literally. With the guidance of my teacher, I see which ideas physically work with me and I strive to develope my own physical interpretation of Kenpo. ok my head hurts I'm done for now.
If you are referring to the motion based interpretation of American kenpo alluded to in Infinite Insights, than you understand it better than many, and you are doing just as Ed Parker wanted and encouraged students to do. Good for you.
On another note over on the KenpoBash forum (where I no longer post for several reasons), an individual has stated I have said some things that are blatantly not true. I have NEVER said I was taught "secret" information. I have NEVER said I was the only one that learned what I know. Everything he has stated as what I said were really HIS words, interpreting what he THINKS I mean. Yes I have used the term "motion Kenpo" and the first time I heard it was from Ed Parker. Many seniors did not learn this approach which is relatively new from the seventies. Frank Trejo's original Kenpo Instructor is Mr. Steve Hearring (still in Pasadena), and he doesn't teach moton-Kenpo. Neither does LaBounty, Sullivan, German, Hebler, Ibrao, and a whole bunch of other real (pre-motion) seniors. There is no animosity between me and Labounty, Kelly, Hearring, Hebler, Planas, etc. Others attempt to stir the post for their own reasons.
Others who came later in the motion era are seniors in their own right, but have nothing to do with what I was taught or where I come from or understand what I was taught and teach.
(with the possible exception of Dennis Conatser who is so damn smart, and we talk all the time so he does understands where I'm coming from even though that is not how Parker taught him.)
Funny how Dennis and I have two completely different perspectives on Kenpo, but still have so much mutual respect for each other as kenpoists. I suspect that is mostly because of his intelligence and his grasp of his kenpo knowledge therefore, how could he be threatened by another view, nor I by his.
The individual could have easily e-mailed me personally and expressed his concerns, yet he chose not to. Instead he goes to a public forum with a history of "bashing" and "bashing" me in particular to air "his" complaints about what HE says I said, and I suppose to sollicit support for his blue belt point of view. He didn't even come to this forum whre he knows I post regularly. (Pehaps because they don't put up with this, "Let's see how long we can keep this bash session going" metality.)
My martial arts background is very diverse, and included the traditional Chinese Arts at the time I met Ed Parker in 63.
If others spent as much time perfecting and studying as they do being "insulted" because someone else has a different view, we would all be better off. Those who have trashed SubLevel Four, me, or my statements haven't deterred, changed, or affected anything but their own narrow view - and my students still look good and laugh at the whole thing. I am not going away until the Lord sends for me. Until then I will continue to do what I have always done and keep my promise to my departed best friend.
I'm willing to answer questions and explain my point of view and help others as much as I can. This is what I get for being one of the few really oldtimers who reads AND posts regularly and will respond to most as time permits.
As my Black Belt who runs the basics program "Doc" Murdock would say, "No good deed goes unpunished."