What is Ed Parker's American Kenpo?

[Zoran]

Now that we have a EPAK section of the forum, I would ask what is EPAK. Is it the curriculum (techs, forms, etc.) or is it the principles that the curriculum is meant to teach.

Could you change the curriculum and still call it EPAK?

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Zoran
Now that we have a EPAK section of the forum, I would ask what is EPAK. Is it the curriculum (techs, forms, etc.) or is it the principles that the curriculum is meant to teach.

Could you change the curriculum and still call it EPAK?

IMO, when Parker learned Kenpo, he eventually made changes to the art, that he felt were necessary. Of course, attatching his name to it, due to the mods. made it his art.

Can you change the curric.?? Depends on how you're changing it. I'm sure that all of the Kenpo. Inst. out there have made changes to the way they do things. Is it still EPAK? IMO, yes.

Mike

 

[Seig]

We are defining EPAK or (Ed Parker Kenpo) as the traditional 32-24-16 technique based systems. Remember Ed Parker Kenpo is a system, not a style. So if it follows the system, I am accepting it as EPAK, until a better parameter comes along.

 

[pete]

At the school I attend the owner/instructor has established his own syllabus based on a combination of "Old Parker" and "New Parker" techniques. We learn 10 techs at yellow belt, and 20 techs per belt level thereafter, plus one form and one set. Sparring begins at Purple belt, and teaching starts between Brown-1 and Black.

There are 170 techiniques to Black Belt, Forms through Long-4, and all of the sets versions 1 and 2. 200 teaching hours are required to be conducted between Brown-1 and Black. A Thesis and Personal Form are required to be presented at your Black Belt test. There are no weapon forms before Black.

The requirements from Black to 2nd degree are another 60 techniques, and to be able to perform all 230 techniques from both sides. Long-5 and Bo Staff Set are required, along with 400 teaching hours, another thesis and personal form.

Just to clarify things, we do "Old" Parker Kenpo through Green Belt, and "New" Parker Brown-3 and up. So at Brown-2, Brown-1, and Black we are learning extensions to techniques we never learned to begin with, so to us they are Brand new techniques... although some are very similar and are actually extensions (Cross of Destruction is really a modification and extension of Bridge), but Clutching Feathers, Captured Leaves, Twisted Twig, etc are nothing like any other techniques we've learned at lower belt levels...

I feel this is EPAK, because the principles are based on Ed Parker's teachings and the curriculum is like a guided tour of Mr Parker's development of his art over his lifetime.

Does anyone else have a similar system? Any comments, similarities / differences... or reasons why this may not be considered EPAK?

thanks,
pete

 

[Michael Billings]

There is no reason I see, why this would not be EPAK. Just curious, is there any emphasis on Theories, Principles, or Concepts (TPC) covered in Ed Parker's Infinite Insights (Vol. 1-5) or his Encyclopedia of Kenpo? Does your instructor attempt to interpret the older Kenpo Techniques using the TPC's, and if so, how successfully?

-Michael

 

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Zoran
Now that we have a EPAK section of the forum, I would ask what is EPAK. Is it the curriculum (techs, forms, etc.) or is it the principles that the curriculum is meant to teach.

Could you change the curriculum and still call it EPAK?

As I understand it, the techs, forms, sayings, etc are all intended to transmit the principles and concepts so it is entirely possible for someone to teach those same principles and concepts with other "illustrations" and therefore be teaching EPAK with any number of curricula.

However someone would want/need/have to "endorse" this and therin lies the problem. If you change the techs, etc, how do you know you did not also change the principles and concepts that are being taught? You would have to know the system well to be able to make such a claim.

It depends on who you are I guess. Lots of instructors such as Mr. Mills and Mr. Hancock have done just this and I am in no position to judge them as being true to EPAK or not. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are teaching EPAK even if they have evolved or refined it. I also suppose that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. LeRoux are also doing EPAK especially when you consider Mr. Speakman's view on the eras of Kenpo as he calls it.

However, for the purposes of this EPAK Forum, I'm hoping that we can stick to Infinite Insights and "Ed Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo" as a base to refer to. These are pretty widely available and authored by Mr. Parker so if they can be accepted as "base EPAK" then I think that anything that can be "proven" (like in Geometry I'm thinking) from these works can still be called EPAK.

Here is how sticky I think this issue is. If we had "X" number of 1st Generation Black Belts who made it to 3rd Under Mr. Parker and thus knew the system as outlined in Infinite Insights Book 5, then I think they could get together with every published and printed book, video, etc of every "EPAK" person out there and sort through them and come up with a list of what is EPAK and what is not.

This is of course, ideal. This is also not possible here. This is also what we are attempting. I say so long as we strive toward a common goal and have a common base to work from (what are those things called in Geometry that you take for granted? I don't think "given" is the proper term, but it is a proper synonym I hope) then I think we will be OK.

But I think many of the issues on other threads have come from someone arguing a "given" without being able to "prove" that it is so. And this doesn't help when the poster is anonymous and thus we have no basis to take their expertise on faith.

I am going to strive to participate in this spirit in this forum.
:asian:

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Zoran
What is EPAK. Is it the curriculum (techs, forms, etc.) or is it the principles that the curriculum is meant to teach. Could you change the curriculum and still call it EPAK?

In the strictest sense.... there are many "versions" of Kenpo that could be under the banner of EPAK. In his own words, Ed Parker took the "keys" that Chow taught him and he built thru time and testing (some call this evolution), what has "today" come to be known as American Kenpo.... and of course we tag the Name "Ed Parker" to that out of respect and credit for the founder of said work.

All who use any of the ideas, terms, techniques, forms, sets, methods, and curriculums in general "could" fall under this category.

I think however that many fail to realize that Ed Parker was constantly "improving" his Kenpo System and replacing or updating previous material with similar but refined material as he went (thus all the versions of techniques that are in circulation).

That is not to say that the "older" material is bad, but one must consider, why Ed Parker changed it in the first place if it didn't need it. He "updated" many techniques as well as merely "adding" multiple interpretations to much of the material (techniques, forms, sets etc.)

Yet, some of the material has remaining virtually unchanged for years but........ BUT....... it "has" been reorganized at various times to better accommodate the teaching of the curriculum (thus the 32 - 24 & 16 technique syllabus) and this WAS done "with" Ed Parkers Approval contrary to what some may say.

Ed Parker's Art has many different names that was either popular during a particular era or used to propagate the idea of Ed Parkers Martial Art. Some of these are..... Kenpo, Chinese Kenpo, Kenpo Karate, Kenpo Ju-Jitsu, Ed Parker Karate, and others. In the later years of his life, during and after the publishing of his "Life's Work", the Infinite Insights I-V, "American Kenpo" became popular with him, because his Art had grown to become the 1st real Art that was developed here on the mainland of the United States of America.
Being a humble man, so he didn't walk around saying that this is "ED PARKER'S" American Kenpo, although it was, but rather Kenpo or American Kenpo, but everyone knew HE was the founder and chief architect and final word on all of what went into the system.

Up until the time of his passing, he, each day, lived breathed, and slept American Kenpo. Many projects were on his "to do" list such as videos, manuals, books, and of course the ever popular seminars he gave all over the world, trying with these efforts to constantly get out the word of what he had developed and the new updates that he was in process of developing with those that were still close to him.

Unfortunately, he never realized the power of the internet and new technology that was about to explode otherwise he would have embraced it and I believe that would have been a great help to him and his IKKA to bring many back to his close group and to update many that had not had many of his "updating and current revisions" for many years. He had a group around him prior to his passing that he would gain opinions from on for much of the material, videos, books etc. that were about to be released. Those individuals were privy to much of what was to come, and it was exciting, but unfortunately never came to be.

Fortunately, he touched thousands of people and we are still fortunate to have many still with us today to learn from. Rather than to try and say or explain who is "Right" or "Correct" and who is not and why..... my advice is to listen to ALL and use Logic and common sense to make your decisions, on the material that they cover. I think you will find out for yourself that everyone has something to offer, some more than others, some have a more eloquent manner of passing on the information some do not, either way there is still much material and knowledge available to all to grow our Art.

In this forum I believe we are trying to stay close to the latest versions, explanations, and interpretations (The Insights Series would be a good Base for Reference) of the Kenpo curriculum so as to be able to talk a little more in terms of up to date.

Now on to explore the American Kenpo System......

 

[cdhall]

I'm not trying to monopolize this board, but this came to me as I wrote my last lengthy post.

Mr. Duffy requires a Personal Form for each belt test starting at Purple I think. I think this was an IKKA requirement as well.

So are your personal forms EPAK? As I outlined above, you have your instructor's "endorsement" on it he accepts your form. Presumably your instructor has evaluated how your form fits in with and exemplifies the principles, concepts and theories.

I would have to say "yes." But again, this is not something everyone can scrutinize here on this thread.

How about a Video Library of Personal Forms? Where would that fit in here on MT? I don't know if we want to vote them "EPAK or Not EPAK" but such a thing might be cool.

I may try to make video clips and post them if I get into a discussion in here that really begs a visual demonstration.

I really think this forum was a great idea.
:asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

Thanks for the very well thought-out and articulate description of Mr. Parker's Kenpo, and those who fall within it, as well as the "when" they fit.

Oss,
-Michael

 

[pete]

There is no reason I see, why this would not be EPAK. Just curious, is there any emphasis on Theories, Principles, or Concepts (TPC) covered in Ed Parker's Infinite Insights (Vol. 1-5) or his Encyclopedia of Kenpo? Does your instructor attempt to interpret the older Kenpo Techniques using the TPC's, and if so, how successfully?

The techniques, whether they are the older or newer models, are taught using the terminology found in Infinite Insights. For example, Circling Elbows taught at Orange is used to exemplify Gravitational Marriage, Pushing the Circle at Purple teaches Contouring, and Detour from Doom at Green illustrates Borrowed Force... to name a few. Dimensional Zones and Checking are both emphasized throughout the material, sparring, and other exercises.

It seems that we do execute a few techniques differently from others... i've described them in my previous posts in the Technical Forum (see Crushing Hammers: C-Step vs 7-step, and Five Swords: one arm in block vs two arms), and don't know if they are related to older principles or just differences in execution among EPAKists. I did discuss both of these at the Boston IKCs recently, with Mr Whitson agreeing on the virtue of the single inward block in 5-Swords, but Ms Tanaka sided in favor of power of the forward bow over stability of a horse stance in Crushing Hammers. do you have any insight into these variations?

 

[pete]

In Lone Kimono as done on Larry Tatum's tip of the week, it appears that after cross pinning and executing the extended right outward block, Mr Tatum then proceeds to encircle and collapse the attackers left arm.

We do Lone Kimono using the same initial movements, however rather than coming back around with the right, we release the left pin and deliver a left handsword to the throat in forward bow, followed by a right hammer to the head returning to neutral, and in quarter-beat time a quick shufflle right knife edge side kick to the attackers knee.

Question is, is this a variation on the part of Mr Tatum for teaching purposes, or is does my description point to a variation among EPAKists? ... or is this method, and those described for Crushing Hammer and 5 Swords a holdover from earlier Parker material (ie Chinese Kenpo, etc)?

I'd appreciate some insight from some of the seniors who regularly frequent this board and may have seen the development and evolution of some of these techniques

thanks,
pete

 

[Seig]

I looked at Mr. Tatum's clip. The only variation he showed on Lone Kimono was how the arm is collapsed. He used a different path of action for collapsing the arm. He also showed that. So, I would venture that it is in fact you that are doing the variation. I am in the 16 tech curriculuum and Mr. Tatum does the 24, but the execution of the technique is virtually the same.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by pete
In Lone Kimono, rather than coming back around with the right, we release the left pin and deliver a left handsword to the throat in forward bow, followed by a right hammer to the head returning to neutral, and in quarter-beat time a quick shufflle right knife edge side kick to the attackers knee.

Question, does my description point to a variation among EPAKists, or a holdover from earlier Parker material (ie Chinese Kenpo, etc)?

pete

What you describe (if I understand it correctly), is very similar to some of the options that I learned some 30 years ago.... so I would say that it is earlier Parker material or rearrangements of similar movements.

:asian:

 

[Seig]

Lone Kimono ala Mr. Tatum

 

[Michael Billings]

When he collapsed the arm, he did it for the purpose on contrasting how he actually does it. He noted the collapse did not check width, but just height and depth.

His final rendition was as Mr. Parker did it and used the squeegee or PATH of MOTION to check down and to the right cancelling height, depth, and width.

The older version (Kimono Grab), as GD7 noted, was the much older version that I had also learned.

-Michael

 

[pete]

GoldenDragon7 and Michael...

thank you for the insight into my technique execution. i think i understand a little more of their origins and evolution.

we do practice a technique called kimono grab in addition to lone kimono. the difference, at least initially, is in lone kimono the pin rotates the attackers hand to the outside where his arm is elbow down in order to come to the inside of the attackers left arm and deliver the outward right block. kimono grab is taught very early in our curriculum (orange belt) as a two handed lapel grab, where the initial move is a handspear up to the throat, then back around to the outside of the attackers left arm as an inward block/strike. in order to set the target, the pin is set and rotates the attackers left arm inward, where his arm would be elbow up to receive the strike.

i hope you enjoy reading my posts, maybe reminiscing, but also finding something of value to consider in your practice. I truly appreciate you sharing your experience and enabling me to build my knowledge base and alternatives.

if either of you have the time, please look back on my descriptions for 5-Swords and Crushing Hammer and let me know if they are also indicative of an earlier Kenpo system. You may PM me if you'd rather see this thread fade away...

pete.