What are the difference in EPAK and Kempo 5.0

[Devildogmrk]

I was curious as to what everyone believes are the differences between the traditional EPAK and Kempo 5.0? I know that one derives from the other, but I was curious if anyone could be more specific. I had read the Black Belt article on this subject but it only hit on it briefly from what I could tell.

[KenpoHank]

I am not very familiar with Mr. Speakman's 5.0, but from the little I have seen there is ground fighting added. It looks sharp. I guess the best answer to your question would be found in his website. I'll be checking it out soon.

[Mikael151]

Amy?

[toejoe2k]

I'll do what I can to tell you about 5.0 but, I cannot really draw a contrast based on first hand experience. 5.0 is really my first experience with Kenpo. I chose 5.0 because of my jujitsu background. I will try to explain it as I understand it directly from Mr. Speakman at a seminar he taught last month in San Antonio.

Much of the original EPAK cirriculum is still taught but, from what Mr. Speakman advised, it's been re-ordered somewhat according to "combat models" which are similar attacks. He explained that the combat models are the default mechanisms against attacks bearing similar attributes or extensions on attacks. Example is for the Orange belt level, the combat model is the street fighters attack of delivering a left jab (Shielding Hammer); a left jab followed by a right cross (5 Swords); a left jab followed by a right upper cut to the body (Raining Claw); and a left jab, right cross, left uppercut combo (Glancing Wing).

Other combat models include ground fighting techniques. In the 5.0 cirriculum, one is supposed to be able to identify the combat model for each belt level starting with the Orange belt material. Mr. Speakman and my instructor advise that we still hold as many of the traditions started by SGM Parker as we can to honor him.

Again, I've disclosed all of this with the preface of the fact that I have never attended an EPAK school and this is based on what Mr. Speakman advised.

If you want my opinion, this program is first rate. A great deal of thought and consideration has gone into the information presented as the 5.0 cirriculum and it very quickly becomes appearent to even a lowly yellow belt such as myself. Of course, I also recognize and am taught that this program is but a slight shift from the genius that is Ed Parker's Kenpo.

Good luck in all of your pursuits and God bless.

~Peace

[Drew]

Mr. Hawkins had a thoughtful post on this subject. Here is the link:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...ight=kenpo+5.0

[amylong]

Hi.

What he did was take out a bunch of techniques, change a bunch of techniques and add a bunch more of his own.

I'm not thrilled with it.

The combat models, in my opinion, kinda ruin several of the techniques. One of the models, for instance, is to add the Snaking Talon beginning to a bunch of techniques. The assumption in 5.0 is that nobody will every just throw a right punch again. That everybody is training and will throw, almost exclusively, a left jab and right cross. So imagine putting that as a prefix for Thundering Hammers. You lose all the forward momentum for doing the technique. The borrowed force is now moot.

There are a few things I like. I like his change to Shielding Hammer. That's the main one I like. There are a few other things that I think would be great as drills, but not as replacement techniques.

There's also way too much ground fighting. There are some techniques where you start standing up, then for no discernible reason, you deliberately take the person to the ground. First of all, the ground is dirty and potentially hazardous and I'm not going there unless I'm made to. Second, unless you are very very skilled on the ground, it's not a good place to be. I think it's important to learn some basics for ground fighting, but I don't think it should replace the other techniques in the system.

--Amy

[hollywood1340]

As an outsider looking in, I noticed the latest movie on his site was a tech called Gatherning Branches 5.0. At one point your opponent punches, allowing for triangle choke. My question is, where did that come from? Seems defending against the grappling response make more sense. And from what I know, very little mind you, of the kenpo mindset Why in God's name are you on the ground tying up your weapons? Where is the consideration of his friends and your enemies? Miss the choke and you'll be on the ground for awhile, head exposed with NO way to defend yourself? You're hoping he goes all gaga and limp, but where are the other consideratoins so evident in Ed Parkers Kenpo? I know the rule is don't fight their fight, but in THIS technique, not to do so is extremely unwise. Kudo's to Speakman however for covering this range of fighting in the system.

[JSK-5.0-AR]

What he did was take out a bunch of techniques, change a bunch of techniques and add a bunch more of his own.

I'm not thrilled with it.

The combat models, in my opinion, kinda ruin several of the techniques. One of the models, for instance, is to add the Snaking Talon beginning to a bunch of techniques. The assumption in 5.0 is that nobody will every just throw a right punch again. That everybody is training and will throw, almost exclusively, a left jab and right cross. So imagine putting that as a prefix for Thundering Hammers. You lose all the forward momentum for doing the technique. The borrowed force is now moot.

There are a few things I like. I like his change to Shielding Hammer. That's the main one I like. There are a few other things that I think would be great as drills, but not as replacement techniques.

There's also way too much ground fighting. There are some techniques where you start standing up, then for no discernible reason, you deliberately take the person to the ground. First of all, the ground is dirty and potentially hazardous and I'm not going there unless I'm made to. Second, unless you are very very skilled on the ground, it's not a good place to be. I think it's important to learn some basics for ground fighting, but I don't think it should replace the other techniques in the system.

--Amy

Hi Amy!

I would like to make a few points here. First, if you do much fighting with the mixed martial arts people, you will notice that they are throwing a lot more left jabs and then right crosses. If you learn to defend that, defending against only the right cross will be easy.

Second, you said, "There are some techniques where you start standing up, then for no discernible reason, you deliberately take the person to the ground." Specifically which 5.0 techniques are you referring to where you take the person to the ground even though you had the choice to stay on your feet?

My best,
Jeff

[Benny-AR]

The assumption in 5.0 is that nobody will every just throw a right punch again. That everybody is training and will throw, almost exclusively, a left jab and right cross.

--Amy

The assumption that 5.0 makes is, if you can take out the guy who knows how to fight (the guy who is training), you can take out the guy who doesn't know what in the heck he is doing.

I believe you are also (falsely) working under the assumption that the 5.0 system does not address the straight right punch in other techniques.

[Richard Baarspul]

Hi.

What he did was take out a bunch of techniques, change a bunch of techniques and add a bunch more of his own.

I'm not thrilled with it.

The combat models, in my opinion, kinda ruin several of the techniques. One of the models, for instance, is to add the Snaking Talon beginning to a bunch of techniques. The assumption in 5.0 is that nobody will every just throw a right punch again. That everybody is training and will throw, almost exclusively, a left jab and right cross. So imagine putting that as a prefix for Thundering Hammers. You lose all the forward momentum for doing the technique. The borrowed force is now moot.

There are a few things I like. I like his change to Shielding Hammer. That's the main one I like. There are a few other things that I think would be great as drills, but not as replacement techniques.

There's also way too much ground fighting. There are some techniques where you start standing up, then for no discernible reason, you deliberately take the person to the ground. First of all, the ground is dirty and potentially hazardous and I'm not going there unless I'm made to. Second, unless you are very very skilled on the ground, it's not a good place to be. I think it's important to learn some basics for ground fighting, but I don't think it should replace the other techniques in the system.

--Amy

Self Defense techniques are traditional ways of training concepts, principles and basics. For that you could also see them as very little forms. They are however no definite answers to street encounters.
Now as for taking your opponent to the ground, that is no more than a way to learn different skills in a different setting. It may not be wise in one occasion to take your opponent to the ground while it may be usefull in another. There are situations imaginable that you do not necessary need to knock the heck out of a opponent but instead of that you only need to control him. By adding techniques in the system where you bring your opponent to the ground you are just learning another way of doing it. And besides that, you need a complete skills set, many of the skills you learn in those techniques you mentioned could also work when you are allready on the ground.

Mr. Speakman occasionally does mention that it is not wise to take a opponent to the ground. But that doesn't mean that you don't have to learn it. When you don't know how, how would you like to defend against it?

Another example is the self defense technique Gift In Return, would you do that on the street while it is much easier to just punch him in the face or kick him in the groin??? It again is just another skill to add to your vocabulair!

Just give it a thought!

Mahalo,

Richard Baarspul

[bujuts]

I'd argue that the changes are to some extent a wise marketing strategy. The thing is, the authors of the 5.0 system probably had enough kenpo in their backgrounds to apply kenpo to the ground without needing "techniques" to teach them how to do it. Allow me to explain.

Techniques are a double edged sword - they're very important for learning, but they can become a hindrance if after time in the system a practitioner cannot function freely without them. And by "function" I mean they cannot innovate and attack in a free form with the same degree of sophistication as seen in techniques. It is in my opinion a mistake to react to given stimuli with specific techniques ("I'm on the inside, so...ooh ooh, I know! Do Five Swords!!" kind of thinking), rather we must cater our responses based on our intent to avoid, subdue, hurt, maim, or kill. They're learning tools, but in our training we must establish a means of breaking away from these learning tools, else they become our rolodex that the mind will, consciously or unconsciously, start scrolling through when we need to deal with violence.

Put short, there can be a few methods of breaking away from them:

1) Learn the system in its entirety, in which case the techniques (I'm told) do disappear and one needn't scroll through the rolodex in order to complete actions with the same level of sophistication as they'd practiced in their techniques.

2) Operate on a smaller set of parameters. Matrix the system based on a few simple things such that the sequences we call "Five Swords", "Gift of Destruction", "Captured Twigs", etc. etc., all have some elements of commonality. The practitioner defaults to those commonalities and extrapolates based on the conditions and stimuli. The techniques become learning tools to survey, not patterns for rote memory.

Method 1 is a standard approach and the more viable option for commercial replication (commercial does not mean cheap, necessarily, it means widespread). Method 2 is in my opinion more effective for development, but its also very difficult to replicate.

So, as I said, the authors of the 5.0 system likely have all they need to
tailor their learnings to deal with levels and types of violence offered by "MMA attacks" (still as likely as a football tackle in a Costco on a Saturday afternoon). He / they accomplished method #1. But, the students in the organization need structure, just like the IKKA did under EP. Widespread instruction of a particular approach could, realistically, only be done if a set cirriculum was created to address what the more advanced could already do anyway.

Short end of it, it was done for the students. The kenpo dots still connect, and so this is still just another technique paradigm meant to get away from once its base is learned and instilled. So, nothing new under the sun really. We shouldn't worry about the "techniques" being different, as they're just tools anyway. Rather, evaluate the core of what is being done under particular circumstances. Difficult on a forum, so much easier on the mats.

Didn't mean to ramble. Coffee.

Steven Brown