(comments by Mr. Chapel on kenpotalk regarding number of techniques in the system)
When the diehards come at you about the extensions, tell them the bulk of them were created by Jim Mitchell, and originally they weren't "extensions" at all. They were the result of long Chinese Kenpo Techniques from the original 32 System. When Mr. Parker commercialized the system further, he cut off the ends of the techniques and created "extensions" to flesh out the system to be learned later, then at brown belt beginning as "Blue/Green."
Do your thing, and the only validity is whether it works or not. If it works for you, it's valid.
Mr. Parker never created an 18 Technique System. He did, however, create a 24 set of charts with his eye on eventually turning it into a 16 chart system for commercial friendly purposes. The 16 were a topic of discussion among some but never came to fruition under Mr. Parker's own hand. Some did do it on they're own. At any rate, the techniques are not gospel, but simply ideas to be explored to get to your techniques of your own design. Students were supposed to create their own "ideal" techniques after exploring the ideas Mr. Parker "suggested." There were zero mandates in the system.
The number of techniques in the system you choose to teach is totally up to you and in no way invalidates the lessons you teach, UNLESS your principles don't work. The entirety of the Ed Parker Kenpo Karate System was a suggested method and order of teaching its many ideas, with techniques suggested for study. If you can do the same or better with a curriculum modified by you and it effectively teaches your students, Mr. Parker would be the first one in line to congratulate you on doing a good job.
Keep in mind there are people who follow the Ed Parker Kenpo Karate Curriculum guidelines to the letter - and produce worthless students who couldn't fight their way out of Girl Scout/Brownie meeting. In turn, your people are kicking a$$. Who do you think Ed Parker would say is doing the better job? At the end of the day, what we do is supposed to be a results-driven vehicle. EPKK is a suggested method to get there. But in my 62 years of the art, I've seen people take an inferior art and make it effective, and others take an intelligent well-defined curriculum and turn it into crap that doesn't work.
There are purists (who aren't any good) who will tell you that you are not teaching the Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate System. My answer to that is, "So?" If your students are learning the principles and skills they need to be effective, then you're doing your job. If necessary, drop the Ed Parker part and call it whatever you want. Who cares, as long as it's good and works?
Look at Kajukenbo whose roots are the same as "Kenpo Karate" in Hawaii. They are extremely diverse in what and how they teach, and what they choose to emphasize. They are truly the original eclectic art, but rather than fight over who is right, they embrace all of their many aspects and let the validity, (or not) speak for itself.
What people don't get is that EPKK is NOT and has never been a style of "Karate," and never has been like other arts. Many want to have it both ways. They want the freedom and flexibility to "tailor," and change things to their heart's desire, but want the rigidity of a traditional style to affirm their ranks and titles. EPKK is a SYSTEMatic approach to training that suggests material and methods you should include in your process. All that matter is the results, and if you're successful you're doing "Kenpo." YOUR KENPO. Many have learned Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate System, but what they do with it becomes THEIR STYLE - for better or worse - but don't blame the system or the style, blame the execution. 32, 24, 18, 16 whatever.
I've seen guys who couldn't perform Short Two get promoted to 3rd Black on a test after a guy tried to knife him a week before and he took the guy out. Mr. Parker didn't say, "Well you don't know Short Two, so I'm not going to promote you. EPKK was JKD before JKD. The difference is EPKK was more and better defined in its SUGGESTIONS of its CONCEPTUAL training methods. JKD says, "take what you like and make it work for you." At least EPKK gave you a systematic approach and suggestions of what to do in the process.
"Show me what you got and I'll tell you if it's any good." - Ed Parker Sr.
My sentiments exactly. We may go around about methodologies of teaching, body mechanics, etc. but I'll never question any of that if what you do works. If it works, what's to argue about? Imagine that.
