Why the varried versions of original techniques???

[sgpaul1973]

Variations in American Kenpo techniques?

Little About Me:
I?m a 3rd Dan, and instructor, in a modified version of American Kenpo. It incorporates a lot from Wing Chun & Aikjutsu. It does however, sacrifice some techniques that are repetitive in nature (such as reversing mace and repeating mace) as well as eliminating some of the extensions for more efficient Aiki type Lock-n-throw, or take down. I?ve also received Dan ranking in the Bujinkan?s Ninjutsu, and I study Russian Systema. In getting back to my Kenpo roots, I have wanted to study more of the original Ed Parker American Kenpo, so that I can understand where my modified version came from. This means learning the techniques I?ve missed out on, as well as picking up the extensions I didn?t learn. Even if I know a more effective and energy efficient way to finish a technique, being able to execute a complicated Kenpo extension at high speed and accuracy builds an invaluable degree of speed, control, coordination, and endurance. So, I?m seeking out this knowledge and actually have hopes to find an organization that will allow me to pick up where I left off and move forward in working towards my 4th Dan.

Here is my question:
When I was learning American Kenpo, and the modified version, every where I went, most techniques were done the same way. However, I?d always heard that Ed Parker sometimes taught them a little differently in different locations in seminars and such, so that there would be a variety of interpretations so that the Kenpo community would be able to learn from each other when he was no longer around. However, I?ve never seen the techniques performed any other way until now. When I watch the Lamkins perform techniques, I see the basic idea of what I was taught, but the weapons or angles have changed slightly and I was wondering why that would be. Let me list an example of what I was taught, and how that differs from the techniques on the DVD?s.

Attacking Mace: After the inward block and reverse punch, I was taught to execute a Roundhouse kick with instep of the foot across the attacker?s stomach and possibly lower floating rips on their right side. Basically kick across their whole mid section to assist them in bending forward, Then as you land the kick, you pull them down towards your right side, you fire a left reverse punch to the side of their floating rips on their right side. However, the DVD?s show a front kick to groin and an upper cut to the ribs. Why the variation within the Kenpo community? Earlier versions verses later versions of Kenpo (Mr. Parker did evolve the art continuously until about 1987)

This is one example, however I find this to be the case with over half of the techniques performed. They are minor differences, but ones that got me curious enough to ask. [FONT=Arial]Also, I?d love to hear about other Kenpo Students and Instructors who have come across these variations on the original techniques. I realize many people have modified and branched off, and their variations are their own modifications based on other arts they have studied. However, there are a lot of these variations found in schools teaching American Kenpo.

Thanks

[administrator]

Why the variation within the Kenpo community? Earlier versions verses later versions of Kenpo (Mr. Parker did evolve the art continuously until about 1987)

It was in 1987 that we began eaching Ed Parker's kenpo. There will always be variation in kenpo among all of the practitioners - it is designed that way. However, what we teach in our program is what was current in the late 80s before Ed Parker's death. We created this program to preserve the teaching method that we were taught, so that the base system would not be lost.

For Alternating Maces, you should note that we teach the front kick to the ribs or groin, and then an inverted horizontal punch (uppercut) to the ribs or kidney). The Library of Kenpo is very precise about the variation of the targets and effects. In the 90s we saw the turn toward the roundhouse kick method that you describe, however, you lose to the control of the three zones, as opposed to the front kick.

I do advise caution in studying an abrviated version of kenpo (techniques left out, principles changed, etc. The techniques are taught in a specific way, not to make robots of the student, but to teach you to think about the principles. When they are mastered, your variations can be made to tailor the sytem to your specific needs.
I will not get into a techinique by technique discussion of differences, that can be done in private lessons.

Kevin Lamkin

[sgpaul1973]

Thank you for providing a bit of explanation on why certain techniques will vary. I do appreciate the advice and warning about getting involved in a abbreviated version of Kenpo, however, I?m not just getting involved in this version of Kenpo, but have studied it for 25 years and teach my own version of it. My version adds even more to the curriculum that draws from my other martial and combat experience. I?d also like to mention that some of Kenpo?s extensions aren?t the fastest and most efficient way to eliminate an attacker. Sometimes the first couple strikes soften the attacker to the point where locks, takedowns, or throws can be just as effective, but more energy efficient. After serving with U.S. Army Special Forces in combat in Somalia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, I value efficiency in combat. I have first hand experience in tactical hand to hand combat in real world life & death situations, but, as I mentioned, I want to learn more of the original system. I?ve looked at a lot of instructional DVDs on the subject. I?ve looked at Larry Tatum?s & Jeff Speakman?s material. They are excellent at teaching advanced skills, but when somebody is learning a new extension, or different variation of a technique, I feel the DVDs offered here are a lot better. I am glad I found the Elite Fighter?s website,Kenpo DVDs and other materials. This is by far the most complete program I have found. I also like the way the material is presented. Thank you gentlemen, for providing a tremendous wealth of Kenpo wisdom.

Paul

[administrator]

Many instructors have changed/dropped the extensions. You really have to dig deep into the kenpo principles to see what they are all about. Part of the teaching method of the extensions is to teach the 'positional relationships' that Ed Parker outlined in his Infinite Insights Series. By knowing these, with the appropriate follow ups, you will be able to develop techniques 'extemporaneously' (as Ed Parker liked to say)

Kevin Lamkin

[warrior-scholar]

You really have to dig deep into the kenpo principles to see what they are all about. Part of the teaching method of the extensions is to teach the 'positional relationships' that Ed Parker outlined in his Infinite Insights Series. By knowing these, with the appropriate follow ups, you will be able to develop techniques 'extemporaneously' (as Ed Parker liked to say)

Kevin Lamkin

This is exactly what I had to accept before making that next "leap" in my understanding of kenpo. Everyone wants to learn how so and so did it or what those guys in that school were doing. Yet, I could always find something to change to tailor it to my specific needs or the certain way my uke would bend or shift after a strike etc. The mind-boggling array of possibilities would be problematic without an understanding of those principles of motion and positional relationships. I don't have to add an additional takedown or control to every kenpo technique as part of my standard curriculum because those should come naturally in training. As soon as I learn the "original" way a technique was taught it will inevitably change the next time I teach it because my journey has made me value certain aspects over others even though I may teach the same "moves" as the "original" method.
I hope you find what you are looking for via Mr. Lamkin and the Elite Fighters website.

[sgpaul1973]

A lot of the locks, takedowns, and throws that have been added into the system I teach aren?t found in advanced levels within American Kenpo. Many do have a more basic form within Kenpo, some aren?t in the art at all, so they wouldn?t all come naturally unless you had learned them else where. Some that are within the Kenpo system are the basic wrist reversals and locks, as well as elbow locks and basic arm-bars. However, when other arts such as the various Samurai Jujutsu, Aikijutsu, Ninjutsu, and Chinese Chi-Na apply these techniques, you can learn to apply them more effectively. David German (God rest his soul) saw this, and studied these other arts. The Tai Karate System was the result. Now, having said that, the system I?m in is similar in many ways. As far as the need for different finishes with takedowns, locks, throws, controlled manipulations, or even pressure points, no, Kenpo doesn?t actually need more of them, however, what I did for Special Operations, as well as the needs of those I taught in the military required faster and more efficient methods of finishing off an attacker with fewer moves and less energy expended. The system I?ve trained it was built around these guiding principals. This in no way implies that Kenpo is a lesser art or inferior. My reasons for going back and learning the original American Kenpo curriculum is to give myself a better understanding of my current art?s origin, and to better build speed and coordination. I have most of the extensions. Where my art differs is in the early techniques that you don?t learn the finishes to (until much later), there are finishes that are very Aikijutsu or Aikido, or may flow into an almost Wing Chun move that would result in a more Ninjutsu type takedown. However, the original intended extensions were still taught at a higher level, except not drilled as much as the more efficient finishes.

Pros ? More efficient and faster finishes that end the confrontation faster in a tactical situation, that requires a bit less coordination.

Cons ? Less coordination built as a result of simplicity.

Yes, I have found what I?m looking for with the Lamkin DVDs. I love how the techniques are broken down, shown from other angles, and shown in the air, and on attackers. In the little time I have worked with the DVDs, my techniques have improved no matter if I perform them in their original format, or via the method of the system I?m ranked in. Every art I study makes me better at the other arts I train in. Kenpo is and always will be my foundation within the arts and I believe the Lamkin?s resources are invaluable and vastly complete. I love it.

[sgpaul1973]

Another question:

First question was how variations in Techniques came about. Now the same question as it applies to forms. In particular, how does Long 6 actually end when performed according to the original curriculum? I have notices that when it comes to forms, two trends can be found. One trend is to keep a graceful flow and stylized motion, and the other trend is to perform each technique in a more combat related mode. I love practicing each form both ways because each method offers a lot. However, where I run into my question is when I see some people finish Form 6 differently than I do. In particular, the last set of moves leading into the salutation. First, you do the opening techniques hand motions on both sides, but this is where I see a variation. One variation then does a couple of sandwiching elbows with outward & downward parries in between them, fallowed with a left outward hand sword as you twist out and then perform the salutation. The other variation still uses the hand portion of the first technique on both sides, but then does the hands only part of the last technique (gun disarm with outward wrist reversal) done on both sides and twisting out. Now, I am curious about 3 things?

A) Which variation is Ed Parkers original vision for Form 6
B) And, where did the other variation come from.
C) Are there other variations commonly found?

The version of the form I know is closest to the way that Larry Tatum performs it, for those of you who have seen him do so. Once again, thank you all for any input, answers and comments. And thank you to the Lamkins

[administrator]

Another question:

A) Which variation is Ed Parkers original vision for Form 6
B) And, where did the other variation come from.
C) Are there other variations commonly found?
I have learned 3 versions of this form. The first version does not look like the more recent two that you mentioned. The form should be performed in a fliud, continuous manner, however you can always tailor the form to suit your needs. If you need to work on snap, dynamic tension, focus, etc. then perform the form in those manners.

The Forms are Ed Parker's, so the final version should be how he was doing it - with the fliud action and the ending with an elbow sandwhich, prior to the salutation.

Variations made by Ed Parker were his throughout the years. In the mid 80s the form was in its final status.

Kevin Lamkin

[sgpaul1973]

I have learned 3 versions of this form. The first version does not look like the more recent two that you mentioned. The form should be performed in a fliud, continuous manner, however you can always tailor the form to suit your needs. If you need to work on snap, dynamic tension, focus, etc. then perform the form in those manners.

The Forms are Ed Parker's, so the final version should be how he was doing it - with the fliud action and the ending with an elbow sandwhich, prior to the salutation.

Variations made by Ed Parker were his throughout the years. In the mid 80s the form was in its final status.

Kevin Lamkin

This reply was very informative. It is interesting to know that Mr. Parker had made changes as he evolved the system. I wonder if some of the form and technique variations arn't a result of the evolution. Your technique would vary, depending on when you or your instructor trained with Mr. Parker (early student, or later student). One thing I'd love to see is the evolution of Ed Parker's Kenpo from its earliest days of when he first left Professor Chow, till its final evolution as American Kenpo. I have heard about changes including a time when Mr. Parker even called it Chinese Kenpo, and the fact that the word 'Karate' was part of the title off and on. However, I would love to see a demonstration of various techniques and forms and how they evolved. In fact, I'd enjoy that every bit as much as the DVD that compairs the Tracy and Parker systems.

Any possibility of a future DVD on the subject of how the art evolved?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more facinating that sounds. I'd be very interested if such a DVD became available.

[warrior-scholar]

When I say "naturally" I am indeed referring to the fact that one has already learned this sort of skill. I certainly wouldn't expect a sport judoka to strike naturally either. What I am pointing out is the maintenance of the technique "as is" for purposes of standard curriculum. If I wish to blend/substitute (and all other terms not included) a taijitsu, judo or jiu jitsu maneuver into the technique at any point before, during and after the technique, then that is just fine. However, teaching the techniques in a standard manner for understanding the principles of Kenpo is most important. The what if phase of training would entail blending other concepts, addressing problems and discussing/practicing appropriate theory. This of course assumes one is maintaining American Kenpo as the art of instruction.

I do indeed agree that tradition is important. I am sharing my experience and also voicing a concern. There are some people who would do so for misplaced reasons.
My kenpo journey started out with Tracy's, so the emphasis on theory was not as important as that of following the curriculum. Some subtle differences in technique seem to hold some clues as to the evolution of the art, but I will have to defer to experts on that matter. I wonder how many purists are out there; people who have pretty much learned nothing other than American Kenpo. It would be interesting to compare their notes with the majority of kenpoists who I am sure have studied several arts. It would also interesting to see how the various styles have indeed influenced the way the curriculum has been and is being taught across the world. This would lead us back to the original post! :)

Did you purchase the Kenpo Compendium? It does have some interesting notes concerning the evolution of various techniques.

[sgpaul1973]

I have not purchased the Kenpo Compendium just yet. I'm starting out with the Rapid Review as a starting base, and then will work up from there based on what topics I feel I need more training in from an American Kenpo perspective. However, your suggestion has bumped it up on my priority list.

I totally agree that blending may suit an actual or theoretical situation, but as a curriculum, you should maintain the original art. In fact, as I previously stated, that is what brought me to this site, and, why I'm grateful for having found it. I love the innovations found in the version I learned, and, my Ninjutsu, Akijutsu, Wing Chun, and Systema all blend very well with it. However, I have always been of the philosophy that it is always fine to add to something, just don't take anything away. So, I love what was added, but want to do a little patch work and fill in what is missing. It is only a few extensions of the first few belts, a couple techniques that are redundant in nature, and some techniques modified slightly here and there. Another personal philosophy that has me really excited about finding this site is that we must study where we have been to have a greater understanding of where we are going. So, seeing the Tracy system demonstrated and compared to AK, then, a full curriculum instruction on Ed Parker?s final vision is perfect for me and what I seek to learn.

As a side note, I have also researched other modified versions such as Al Farnsworth?s White Dragon Kenpo and also Chuck Sullivan and Vic Larux?s Chinese Kenpo (IKCA). I've watched Paul Mills (AKKI) and his people and analyzed Larry Tatum's forms and techniques. I find each source unique, insightful & innovative, but nothing s complete as what I find here.

Thanks to all who continue to reply?