What does "Motion Kenpo" mean?

[Flying Crane]

I have seen this term used to describe the system that Mr. Parker established in roughly the 1970s. I have also seen the term "commercial" used to describe this system as well. While I understand what is meant by "commercial", I am still confused by the term "Motion Kenpo". This seems to imply a certain approach to training and teaching, but I have not been able to figure out just what that approach is.

Motion is used in all martial arts, so in a way is seems like this description could be used for any art. What is meant by this, when it is used to describe kenpo from that era? How does this approach differ from what came before, such as Tracy kenpo, or what Mr. Labounty does, or other groups that claim to not do "Motion Kenpo", such as SL4? What is the fundamental approach in training and teaching that defines "Motion Kenpo"? Thanks.

 

[jazkiljok]

While I understand what is meant by "commercial", \.

perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by "commercial" and how that compares to say non-commerical kenpo? thanks.

 

[IWishToLearn]

Ed Parker Jr. has defined "commercial" kenpo as taught in a commercial school. Non-commercial kenpo would be therefore taught in a home studio, at a park, possibly not for profit. I'm sure there are many interpretations. That just happens to be the first one I can recall. Dr. Chapel will no doubt chime in here with his precise definition.

 

[Flying Crane]

perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by "commercial" and how that compares to say non-commerical kenpo? thanks.

This is not a term that I use, but I have seen it used by others. In my opinion, it is a bit of a loaded term and is judgemental by implication. I have not studied any EPAK kenpo so I am not in a position to make that judgement myself.

This is how I understand the message behind the term "commercial", as I have seen it used by others: in or about the 1970s, Mr. Parker established a version of kenpo that was meant to be marketed to the masses. It was built upon a business model that was designed to be effective in opening a chain of schools as a business venture, and was designed to make money. Because of the business focus, which meant that it was a product to be sold to as many people as possible, the result was that certain elements of the art were left out because it was not possible to teach to the masses. Supposedly, various concepts that could lead to a deeper understanding and more effective application of the art were eliminated from the business, or "commercial" version of the art. These elements and concepts are too tricky and take too long and too much effort to teach properly. If they are taught at all, they must be taught to smaller groups and over a long period of time to do it properly. Because this would be counter to the business model, they were just eliminated.

What was left was a version of the art that can be effective, but has inherent limitations because of what was left out. I guess you could say it is only a partial martial art. But due to the large numbers of people it was meant to be taught to, this was the best that was possible. It also created consistency from one school to the next, within the chain of franchises. A student at any level could enter a different school within the chain, and fit right in and get the same kind of training.

Whether or not one teaches or practices in a money-making commercial school or "McDojo" of some kind isn't what defines "commercial" kenpo. It is that the curriculum comes from the art that was established with this business model in mind, and carries these inherent "limitations". I believe it is the curriculum as outlined in Mr. Parker's Infinite Insights series.

This same version of kenpo has also been described as "motion kenpo", which, like I said in my first post, implies a certain approach to training. I have not yet seen a clear description of what this means, and that is what I would like to understand.

Apparently there are some who were never a part of the business agenda, and they learned the deeper aspects of the art from Mr. Parker. Also, apparently those who studied under Mr. Parker prior to the 1970s, and who never adopted the curriculum and approach from that era, also do not do "Motion" or "Commercial" kenpo, altho some of them have certainly created their own business and commercial ventures as well.

Again, this is not my term, I am in no position to pass this judgement on anybody's kenpo. I have seen these terms get used often enough, and I am trying to understand why some describe the art this way. For those who might be training what others term as "commercial" or "motion" kenpo, I would also welcome their viewpoints as well.

 

[Doc]

This is not a term that I use, but I have seen it used by others. In my opinion, it is a bit of a loaded term and is judgemental by implication. I have not studied any EPAK kenpo so I am not in a position to make that judgement myself.

This is how I understand the message behind the term "commercial", as I have seen it used by others: in or about the 1970s, Mr. Parker established a version of kenpo that was meant to be marketed to the masses. It was built upon a business model that was designed to be effective in opening a chain of schools as a business venture, and was designed to make money. Because of the business focus, which meant that it was a product to be sold to as many people as possible, the result was that certain elements of the art were left out because it was not possible to teach to the masses. Supposedly, various concepts that could lead to a deeper understanding and more effective application of the art were eliminated from the business, or "commercial" version of the art. These elements and concepts are too tricky and take too long and too much effort to teach properly. If they are taught at all, they must be taught to smaller groups and over a long period of time to do it properly. Because this would be counter to the business model, they were just eliminated.

What was left was a version of the art that can be effective, but has inherent limitations because of what was left out. I guess you could say it is only a partial martial art. But due to the large numbers of people it was meant to be taught to, this was the best that was possible. It also created consistency from one school to the next, within the chain of franchises. A student at any level could enter a different school within the chain, and fit right in and get the same kind of training.

Whether or not one teaches or practices in a money-making commercial school or "McDojo" of some kind isn't what defines "commercial" kenpo. It is that the curriculum comes from the art that was established with this business model in mind, and carries these inherent "limitations". I believe it is the curriculum as outlined in Mr. Parker's Infinite Insights series.

This same version of kenpo has also been described as "motion kenpo", which, like I said in my first post, implies a certain approach to training. I have not yet seen a clear description of what this means, and that is what I would like to understand.

Apparently there are some who were never a part of the business agenda, and they learned the deeper aspects of the art from Mr. Parker. Also, apparently those who studied under Mr. Parker prior to the 1970s, and who never adopted the curriculum and approach from that era, also do not do "Motion" or "Commercial" kenpo, altho some of them have certainly created their own business and commercial ventures as well.

Again, this is not my term, I am in no position to pass this judgement on anybody's kenpo. I have seen these terms get used often enough, and I am trying to understand why some describe the art this way. For those who might be training what others term as "commercial" or "motion" kenpo, I would also welcome their viewpoints as well.

Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets. I would only add that Ed Parker's own description of that art is based on the "study of motion." and is dominated by that concept, and its practitioners themselves use that appropriate description. Mr. Parker in looking for a 'mass market' idea hit upon this concept while watching himself on film, running the film backwards. Thus 'motion based' kenpo was born, commercialized, and proliferated. And as I have always said, the quality of the art is predicated on the experience, knowledge, and skill of its teachers. Naturally because its a commercial art that accepts everyone, there will always be those who have risen to become teachers with significant limitations in all those areas. Witness the plethora of high ranking young masters not found in other arts, and especially the more traditional where these things are mandated qualities in teachers, not just desireable. All arts 'move,' but none I know prior to Ed Parker used the conceptual idea of 'motion' as the basis of teaching. It is true that "motion is infinte" and thats where the name of Mr. Parker's book series came from. "Infinite Insights" into motion. The idea of just getting people to move was a great one, and for some is a good first stage of development. But correct anatomical movement to maximize and create longevity in skills as well as cultivate internal energy are another story. For those reared in the motion concept, the painful part is to go back and define their 'movement' and to conform to anatomical mandates instead of just being satisfied with 'moving.' The fact that you can now get to 'bars plus stripes' without having to do that, sets the standard for the art, rather low. But, some teachers nevertheless, are exemplary with really good students. It is only ego and pride that restrains them. But Parker new in a commercial art people would need to seek their own level, and 'Motion-Kenpo' does that better than anything. This is also why you see such great disparity in skill and knowledge between students of similar ranks. Even within the same school sometimes, grading must be flexible. Kinda like most public schools that must accept everyone as well, and we know how they consistently turn out the best.

Flying Crane, you are amazing.

 

[MJS]

Doc,

Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets.

Flying Crane, you are amazing.

Well thank you for that sir.

I am still trying to figure out how the term "motion" fits in, as an accurate description for this. Why is the term "motion" approporate? maybe i'm missing something, but this is what stumps me. Maybe because I have not studied EPAK, I lack the frame of reference to see what this term is describing, so this is why I'm asking for a little clarification.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Doc,

Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?

Mike

Many know more than they share. Lotsa technology and insight out there; not that many curious vessels, willing to stretch the envelope for the sake of little more than stretching the envelope.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Doc]

Doc,

Out of all of the others that were also there with Mr. Parker, such as Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, etc., would you say that they are all doing the commercial or motion system, or do they have that deeper knowledge, but choose to teach the commercial method?

Mike

All of the people you named are from the 'motion- kenpo' era. I know of no one that was there before the commercial motion business was created, that teaches it. However the knowledge of individual instructors is defined by more than that. Only a handful of people began with Ed Parker as white belts and made it to black. Most were knowledgeable in other arts before coming to Parker, and presumably Parker enhanced what they already knew as well as their previous knowledge impacting what they teach.

 

[MJS]

Doc and Dave,

Thank you both for your replies.:asian:

Mike

 

[KenpoRonin]

Your understanding sir as far as I'm concerned is as good as it gets. I would only add that Ed Parker's own description of that art is based on the "study of motion." and is dominated by that concept, and its practitioners themselves use that appropriate description. Mr. Parker in looking for a 'mass market' idea hit upon this concept while watching himself on film, running the film backwards. Thus 'motion based' kenpo was born, commercialized, and proliferated. And as I have always said, the quality of the art is predicated on the experience, knowledge, and skill of its teachers. Naturally because its a commercial art that accepts everyone, there will always be those who have risen to become teachers with significant limitations in all those areas. Witness the plethora of high ranking young masters not found in other arts, and especially the more traditional where these things are mandated qualities in teachers, not just desireable. All arts 'move,' but none I know prior to Ed Parker used the conceptual idea of 'motion' as the basis of teaching. It is true that "motion is infinte" and thats where the name of Mr. Parker's book series came from. "Infinite Insights" into motion. The idea of just getting people to move was a great one, and for some is a good first stage of development. But correct anatomical movement to maximize and create longevity in skills as well as cultivate internal energy are another story. For those reared in the motion concept, the painful part is to go back and define their 'movement' and to conform to anatomical mandates instead of just being satisfied with 'moving.' The fact that you can now get to 'bars plus stripes' without having to do that, sets the standard for the art, rather low. But, some teachers nevertheless, are exemplary with really good students. It is only ego and pride that restrains them. But Parker new in a commercial art people would need to seek their own level, and 'Motion-Kenpo' does that better than anything. This is also why you see such great disparity in skill and knowledge between students of similar ranks. Even within the same school sometimes, grading must be flexible. Kinda like most public schools that must accept everyone as well, and we know how they consistently turn out the best.

Flying Crane, you are amazing.

I would completely concur to all you said and would only add that as Parker continuously developed his system, he constantly discovered new and better ways to move his techniques. There are certain angles the body moves on that are more efficient and able to provide more power than if that angle was slightly skewed. One could also apply both sides of the body in harmony in motion to provide increased power. Now I know that all martial arts apply these principles to their art, but do they apply them in all their techniques in all aspects of their techniques to give them the best possible technique. I feel that is what Parker was going for and why he constantly was making revisions to the system.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK, I've been giving this some more thought, still trying to figure out exactly how the term "Motion" fits into the picture, and just exactly what it is describing. I've had some private discussions with others about this, trying to nail down what is meant. Here is a thought that I came up with:

Maybe it's in how the curriculum is organized and taught. The fact that it is organized into a formal curriculum, with X number of techs per belt, puts a lot of emphasis on the techs as a vehicle, and on the forms by extension. The techs get sort of put up on a pedestal and in the spotlight and they become the center of focus and maybe that is a mistake. Instead, correct basics should be the main focus, and the techs should be treated more like auxilliary ideas and concepts to experiment with, in learning to apply the basics and the principles upon which the art is built. But because for many people the techs become the main focus, and the techs often have a whole lot of movements in them with many many followups and such, people end up learrning too much "motion", i.e. too many techniques, that are too complex, without enough attention paid to the basics. If the basics are strong to begin with, then working with the techs makes sense. But if you shortcut over the basics and jump to the techs before you are ready, then you are just "going thru the motions" of the techniques, but they aren't solid. When the foundation isn't solid enough, all the techs in the world just become abstract and rather useless motion that carry little value. The house is built on a foundation of sand, and an earthquake is coming.

Now one might argue that you learn the basics while you learn the techs. The techs are built with the basics, so if you work them and drill them, your basics will become strong. I would say that to some degree this idea has some truth to it, but overall it is limited. The techs are complex enough that it is easy to "slurr" the basics and just get thru the tech. If you build the basics separately, and really pay attention to the details, your techs will be much more solid when you work on them later.

So how close to the mark have I come?

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

OK, I've been giving this some more thought, still trying to figure out exactly how the term "Motion" fits into the picture, and just exactly what it is describing. I've had some private discussions with others about this, trying to nail down what is meant. Here is a thought that I came up with:

Maybe it's in how the curriculum is organized and taught. The fact that it is organized into a formal curriculum, with X number of techs per belt, puts a lot of emphasis on the techs as a vehicle, and on the forms by extension. The techs get sort of put up on a pedestal and in the spotlight and they become the center of focus and maybe that is a mistake. Instead, correct basics should be the main focus, and the techs should be treated more like auxilliary ideas and concepts to experiment with, in learning to apply the basics and the principles upon which the art is built. But because for many people the techs become the main focus, and the techs often have a whole lot of movements in them with many many followups and such, people end up learrning too much "motion", i.e. too many techniques, that are too complex, without enough attention paid to the basics. If the basics are strong to begin with, then working with the techs makes sense. But if you shortcut over the basics and jump to the techs before you are ready, then you are just "going thru the motions" of the techniques, but they aren't solid. When the foundation isn't solid enough, all the techs in the world just become abstract and rather useless motion that carry little value. The house is built on a foundation of sand, and an earthquake is coming.

Now one might argue that you learn the basics while you learn the techs. The techs are built with the basics, so if you work them and drill them, your basics will become strong. I would say that to some degree this idea has some truth to it, but overall it is limited. The techs are complex enough that it is easy to "slurr" the basics and just get thru the tech. If you build the basics separately, and really pay attention to the details, your techs will be much more solid when you work on them later.

So how close to the mark have I come?

I'd buy most of that.

Short Version.

"Motion" Kenpo studies the near infinite number of ways that the body can move and applies science whittle down the number of "effective" variables. The student is left to discover what is "effective" to him while exploring the near infinte number of possible movements and combinations.

"Non Motion" Kenpo does not study the near infinite variables and is not concerned with opposites, reverses and "category completion". A decidedly finite number of "effective" movements are taught and drilled with no emphasis on finding or exploring other variations that may not be as "effective".

That's what I get out of it at this point.

 

[Touch Of Death]

A contrast to Hype kenpo.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'd buy most of that.

Short Version.

"Motion" Kenpo studies the near infinite number of ways that the body can move and applies science whittle down the number of "effective" variables. The student is left to discover what is "effective" to him while exploring the near infinte number of possible movements and combinations.

"Non Motion" Kenpo does not study the near infinite variables and is not concerned with opposites, reverses and "category completion". A decidedly finite number of "effective" movements are taught and drilled with no emphasis on finding or exploring other variations that may not be as "effective".

That's what I get out of it at this point.

Hmmm...not sure that was what I was thinking. More like "Motion" kenpo jumps straight to the techniques and forms, and expects that the basics and principles will be absorbed out of their practice. The "fancy" moves are learned early-on.

Non "motion" kenpo drills the basics until they are solid, then works with the techs and forms once the foundation is built. Takes longer to learn the "fancy" moves, but they will be more effective if done this way.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

Hmmm...not sure that was what I was thinking. More like "Motion" kenpo jumps straight to the techniques and forms, and expects that the basics and principles will be absorbed out of their practice. The "fancy" moves are learned early-on.

Non "motion" kenpo drills the basics until they are solid, then works with the techs and forms once the foundation is built. Takes longer to learn the "fancy" moves, but they will be more effective if done this way.

Well gotta disagree here, too general

I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything. The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.

My friend in the Area called "Big Max" also drills basics and principles like nobody's business. His yellow belts have training in excess of a year for Yellow. I've seen him spend hours at a time just drilling them on crossovers and pivots.

I've never seen any SL-4 or "non motion" kenpo stuff that I would deem fancy.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well gotta disagree here, too general

I teach "motion kenpo" by defintion and I drill Basics and principles and don't "jump" to anything. The "fancy" moves come wherever they show up on the charts which is usually around Blue or Green or so by my personal opinion of Fancy.

My friend in the Area called "Big Max" also drills basics and principles like nobody's business. His yellow belts have training in excess of a year for Yellow. I've seen him spend hours at a time just drilling them on crossovers and pivots.

I've never seen any SL-4 or "non motion" kenpo stuff that I would deem fancy.

well, this is exactly what I am trying to get to the bottom of: just what the heck does the term "motion" refer to? I keep seeing this term used in discussion, in certain camps, and it generally doesn't seem to be a positive term (from what I can tell), and I am trying to understand what the heck it means. Nobody seems willing to come out and give a clear explanation of this term, how it relates to Mr. Parker's commercial system from the 70s, and just why exactly it is a "negative", or at least "limited" thing, compared to "non motion" kenpo. What is the term "motion" describing, as far as approaches to training and such, or philosophy, or whatever? As I stated in one of the earlier posts, I understand the concept of the "commercial" system, but the term "motion" is also used to describe this commercial system, and the meaning of the term "motion", in this context, remains unclear to me.

So I am listing my own thoughts as to what it MIGHT mean, hoping to get some feedback from those who might know.

If you are doing what would be considered "motion" kenpo, then I appreciate your comments, 'cause I think you guys should weigh in. That's why I put this in an open discussion thread, instead of sending a bunch of Private Messages. I think if your kenpo is being negatively judged by anybody, you guys should have a chance to comment on it.

And by "fancy stuff", I am simply referring to the curriculum of SD techs and forms, as opposed to the basics. I suppose (tho I could be wrong) that SL4 uses these techs as well, in some way, shape, or form...

 

[BlackCatBonz]

now i dont study epak.......most people on the boards know this......but i have been apart of several convos trying to understand what the definitions mean.

From my discussions with Doc, i am under the assumption that sl-4 teaches principles via technique as the goal; whereas with motion kenpo, executing proper technique is the goal.
this would make the system much easier to learn because one would only need to demonstrate a working technique, rather than define the principles responsible for the techniques efficacy.

 

[Hand Sword]

Since "motion Kenpo" practitioners have never referred to it as such, instead calling what they do Kenpo. I would say that "Motion Kenpo" is a term, in all fairness, that is used to describe it in a lesser manner, when compared to the "Non-Motion Kenpo", by the Non-Motion Kenpo practitioners. Honestly, it's just a term.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I dont think it describes it as lesser......just something different.
If it was created to teach people quickly how to implement self defense into their daily lives and bring confidence to put it into action.......seems like a pretty successful venture.

I think some people feel that by calling it that, it automaitcally relegates it to inferior status.
It is what it is