NeoKenpo or just watered down WKKA

[Cord the Seeker]

I have a very serious question. I don't want to start a flame, so please tihnk through this one carefully without taking offense, if you are in one of the associations that do this.

Since Ed Parker listed the techniques, and published it in his Infinite Insights Vol.5, as 24 techniques per belt, why are there associations, like WKKA, UKS and others who have reduced the number of techniques per belt, and even thrown techniques out of the system (or naming them optional techniques) and therefore making it easier to get black belts much easier?

I can't understand this.

Cord

[Tacticus]

... why are there associations, like WKKA, UKS and others who have reduced the number of techniques per belt, and even thrown techniques out of the system (or naming them optional techniques) and therefore making it easier to get black belts much easier?
Cord

Simple, Money. So many practitioners are so ego conscious, they will keep giving money, as long as they are getting rank. If they have to work for it, they go somewhere else, like TKD. The Elite-Fighters have a hard core of guys who don't seek rank. But their numbers are few in comparison to the associations that you mentioned.

Let's keep the high standards that were originally set out by Ed Parker, Al Tracy, and the Lamkins!

Tacticus

[president kang]

First post on this board. Ordered the comparison dvd and loved it.
Personally, I think 16 techniques per belt is very watered down. I got my black belts through an offshoot of Tracy Kenpo, and I had to learn 35 techniques per belt, plus many variations to some of the techniques. When I earned my first black, I knew I had really accomplished something.

[warrior-scholar]

Your point is well taken, but it really isn't all about the actual number of techniques per belt is it? If we follow this thing through then it makes sense to have 50 techniques per belt and call that an expert system. While certain unnamed systems do have so little material that the belts become meaningless, the material must also be manageable for the average practitioner. Obtaining a black belt is merely a step along a much longer pathway. People claiming to teach this system or that system who actually teach nothing like it are the problem. If someone wants to teach Parker's system, then do so. Don't tell us you decided to tweak the system and remove this or that and still call it by the same name. How many times have I seen the complete Tracys system on somebody's website with completely different names! The whole belt business has gotten out of control-feeding egos and fattening wallets.

[sgpaul1973]

I so completely agree with the points made throughout this thread. I have seen it all too many times. There is noting wrong with making changes, or adding material to enhance, but I?m very much against removing content, and/or, maintaining the name of the original art as if to imply you?re teaching it in its original format. The modified version I learned openly credited American Kenpo and Ed Parker, however, was very open about where it deviated from the original art. Also, it never was billed as ?American Kenpo?, but went by a different name that had a subtitle of, ?A Kenpo Based System.? David German is a great example because he had an art called Tai Karate System, which is American Kenpo with a lot of Jujutsu, Aikido, and Chi-Na blended in to enhance original content, while broadening the range of options. He always gave credit where credit is due by being open about the foundation of his art being Kenpo, however, used a different name all together.

Now a question about original curriculum:
What is the origin of the various technique systems?
1) 16 Technique per belt was already covered.
2) 24 Techniques per belt was Ed Parker?s format?
3) 32 Techniques, where did that come from? And why?

[sgpaul1973]

I have a question about the various curriculums:
What is the origin of the various technique systems?
1) 16 Technique per belt was already covered.
2) 24 Techniques per belt was Ed Parker’s format?
3) 32 Techniques, where did that come from? And why?

The questions posted in the quote above have been partialy answered, because I realize the 24 technique system is the original format. I also understand that the 16 technique system comes from one of two places. One school of thought is "Fewer techniques held to a higher standard". I don't believe in this concept, but I don't deny that there is some logic behind it. It basically is a way of thinking of some martial artists that you should have a simpler system of fewer techniques, but you put more energy in mastering those techniques. The othter source of the 16 technique system is simply shortening the path to blackbelt for the purpose of student retention and money. In both cases, it waters down the system.

My big question is what is the 32 technique format and what is the main principal behind it, and, where did it come from?

I have 2 theories:
1) my first theory is that it is simply a re-grouping of the techniques to ensure that all techniques are learned by an earlier rank. I've heard arguments that one should know the whole system prior to earning a First Degree Black Belt.

2) My second theory is that it is just a few extra techniques added to the system. Possiby techniques carried over from Chow's Kara Ho Kenpo. Techniques that probly still exist in the Tracy System. Or Techniques that are later additions to the system after SGM Parker established the finalized format and curriculum.

I'd love to hear input from everyone and anyone who has any information and input, especially as it applies to the 32 technique system.

Thanks...
-Paul

[Lance C]

I heard Larry Tatum once say, being a Kenpo instructor is like being someone's dad. At some point they grow up and move out and do things on their own.

From what I can tell seeing many different versions of American Kenpo derivative arts come and go, it is interesting to point out a few different things.

There are two kinds of people, those that divide everything into two categories and those that should...

(sorry for the joke, but generalizations are a plague)

Real fighters (in the spirit of the Elite Fighters doctrine) are found everywhere. If someone "takes to it", a bad karate school is not enough. They start using their brain and start looking around and put things to use.

The only thing bad karate schools do, is put a bad taste in a community's mouth. If that bad taste was labelled Kenpo, it will be remembered as such. Then it is hard for the next guy to get going... (Personal experience)

The horrible problem with American Kenpo is the same thing that makes it so great, the curriculum. It comes down to an old chinese proverb:

Tell me and I will forget,
Show me and I may remember
Involve me and I will know.

Which schools tell, show or involve students in the curriculum? The trend on free roaming Kenpo is mostly tell with a little bit of show. The involve part is how the attacks and defenses work (or don't work) together. The break down and theory of it is forgotten by people who memorized it (tell and show, over and over again) but failed to get involved.

I go to schools, read books and watch videos on other grab arts like wrestling to see what all of the attacks could be about. Ever see a Greco-Roman wrestler apply a bear hug? Why? et cetera.

The arguement of how many techniques per belt was an old one. How much information should be taught to students per level? I think we should all look at the art and say, stay involved as long as we still are learning. Instructors have a capacity limit on how much they can teach, when you run out of learning material, you move on.

-Lance

[sgpaul1973]

A very informative reply and post and I did enjoy reading it. I even loved the quote by Lary Tatum, since I'm quite a big fallower and fan of him. However, it didn't answer a single question I had. LOL.... I'm not asking what technique system is better or which I should use. I am asking what the "32 technique per belt" system is, and where it came from. And, in asking what it is, I mean is it all the same 155 techniques? Or, is it an expanded curriculum? Is the general idea to cover all 155 techniques by 1st or second degree black belt in stead of 3rd? I'm just curious to learn more about that particular version of teaching, what it is, and where it came from.

Any ideas or info on it?

Thanks,
Paul

[Maximus]

Originally, Kenpo was divided into 3 belt colors--White, Brown and Black. The white belts were further divided (with stripes) into four divisions which later became Orange, Purple, Blue and Green Belts. The Brown Belts were always 3 degrees indicated with stripes.

In these early days (late 1950's and early 1960's) all self-defense techniques were taught in the Orange-Green belts with 32 techniques per belt. Extensions were taught beginning in the brown belts as "Orange-Purple" extensions etc.

So, 32 techniques divided between the Orange, Purple, Blue and Green Belts give 128 techniques. Later, when Ed Parker finalized the system into the 24-technique system (24 techniques per belt) he added 10 techniques for Yellow belt and added an additional 16 techniques from the advanced forms--thus giving us 154 techniques that we have today.

More detailed information can be found in the Kenpo Compendium

Eric

[sgpaul1973]

Originally, Kenpo was divided into 3 belt colors--White, Brown and Black. The white belts were further divided (with stripes) into four divisions which later became Orange, Purple, Blue and Green Belts. The Brown Belts were always 3 degrees indicated with stripes.

In these early days (late 1950's and early 1960's) all self-defense techniques were taught in the Orange-Green belts with 32 techniques per belt. Extensions were taught beginning in the brown belts as "Orange-Purple" extensions etc.

So, 32 techniques divided between the Orange, Purple, Blue and Green Belts give 128 techniques. Later, when Ed Parker finalized the system into the 24-technique system (24 techniques per belt) he added 10 techniques for Yellow belt and added an additional 16 techniques from the advanced forms--thus giving us 154 techniques that we have today.

More detailed information can be found in the Kenpo Compendium

Eric

Oh!!!!!, ok. That makes alot of sence. I greatly appreciate the explanation of where 32 per belt level came from. That does clear up a lot.

Thanks,
Paul