What happened to Intellectual departure?

What happened to Intellectual departure?

Joined: November 27th, 2006, 3:40 am

October 29th, 2007, 3:57 am #1

I was just curious; if Intellectual departure is considered one of the 10 master key self-defense techniques, why isn't it in the American Kenpo cirriculum as outlined in volume 5 of Infinite Insights. I also haven't seen it in other cirriculum's. Who is still teaching it and when and why was it removed from the cirriculum?

Personally I like the technique and still teach it and play with it. Hopefully someone has the answer it's one of about a hundred nagging questions I have.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 24th, 2007, 7:55 pm

October 29th, 2007, 7:11 am #2

i noticed this as well some teach it most dont... my school did not i learned it elsewhere...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 9th, 2007, 11:54 pm

October 29th, 2007, 10:59 am #3

I was just curious; if Intellectual departure is considered one of the 10 master key self-defense techniques, why isn't it in the American Kenpo cirriculum as outlined in volume 5 of Infinite Insights. I also haven't seen it in other cirriculum's. Who is still teaching it and when and why was it removed from the cirriculum?

Personally I like the technique and still teach it and play with it. Hopefully someone has the answer it's one of about a hundred nagging questions I have.
The first manual I purchased from Mr. Parker had the Original Ten techniques, that was in the beginning of 1983. Later , toward the end of that year or beginning of the next a new manual came out. This one had Agressive Twins, Spreading Branch and Intellectual Departure removed, as well as , Checking the Storm changed with a chicken kick. Mr. Parker explained to me later that one of his close Black Belts at the time had mentioned that these original four techniques were to brutal to be taught to white belts, due mainly to the kicking of the knees, so he allowed him to make some replacements. They were Alternating Mace, sword and hammer and captured twigs and changed checking the storm. He allowed this for reasons, that I will leave off this site for now. The original Ten Yellow belt techniques were to be brought back for everyone in 1991, I had started to learn them much earlier. The knew "changed techniques" break rules for the most part and are not part of the original system. The important thing to understand is that the Original Yellow Techniques give you an overview of how the entire system is built, I do this analysis quite often in my black belt classes. ALso, the original orders were eventually changed and were to be brought back also, but Mr. Parker passed before this was done. The original orders are also designed to help you study the system with key themes, etc. and should not be changed - they were created by Ed Parker, order changes later were done by other black belts. Anyway, I could go on forever. In AKI we study the original system and that has given me an excitement about Ed parker's Kenpo to this very day and will forever - I sometimes get so overwhelmed at how much I have to teach my Black Belts and do not now what to do next, this is a good problem and a testament at what a genius of the art Master Parker really was!
Last edited by 4772748 on October 30th, 2007, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 4th, 2004, 8:13 pm

October 29th, 2007, 2:55 pm #4

I was just curious; if Intellectual departure is considered one of the 10 master key self-defense techniques, why isn't it in the American Kenpo cirriculum as outlined in volume 5 of Infinite Insights. I also haven't seen it in other cirriculum's. Who is still teaching it and when and why was it removed from the cirriculum?

Personally I like the technique and still teach it and play with it. Hopefully someone has the answer it's one of about a hundred nagging questions I have.
I teach the originals as they are extremely important parts of our systems' blueprint, especially when talking about category completion. I know the story behind the changes (probably not in its entirety) and I think they don't make much sense. Let's take sword and hammer for example. In my opinion, if you hit the guy in the throat it's quite possible that you won't get the second shot in since you will be sending him back. Furthermore, the technique violates the rule of always facing your work. I understand that there can be exceptions to the rule, but in that technique, to make it more realistic, you could step into him (engaging)and driving him back so that you have a strong bracing angle and can continue to drive if need be. But, if you did that it would violate the idea that a beginner should always retreat as it makes more sense than to step into danger.

Now let's look at the original technique that sword and hammer replaced--Intellectual Departure. First of all, when the technique as changed, so was the attack. Obviously Intellectual Departure comes from a right front kick. Now earlier we learn to go to the outside of the leg with Deflecting Hammer and I teach it with hands up as if to say, "I don't want any trouble." Why? Because the hands are in a loaded position to drop. I don't want to chance bringing my hands up and then bringing the right hand back down for the parrying block. The kick will probably be too fast. With that being said, we need to know what to do if our hands are down. That is where Intellectual Departure comes in. You need it there. Also, lets look at the block we use (Inward downward palm down block). Without Intellectual Departure this block is not put into combative use until much later in the system. Yes it is in Long 1, but that is not a combative form, nor is that demonstrating a combative situation.

I could go on forever, but I am sure you get the point. You need the original techniques. I also know the other three as they were originally taught to me. I didn't learn the originals until much later into my training.

Yours,

Michael Miller, CKF
www.millersdojo.com
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 24th, 2007, 7:55 pm

October 29th, 2007, 4:21 pm #5

The first manual I purchased from Mr. Parker had the Original Ten techniques, that was in the beginning of 1983. Later , toward the end of that year or beginning of the next a new manual came out. This one had Agressive Twins, Spreading Branch and Intellectual Departure removed, as well as , Checking the Storm changed with a chicken kick. Mr. Parker explained to me later that one of his close Black Belts at the time had mentioned that these original four techniques were to brutal to be taught to white belts, due mainly to the kicking of the knees, so he allowed him to make some replacements. They were Alternating Mace, sword and hammer and captured twigs and changed checking the storm. He allowed this for reasons, that I will leave off this site for now. The original Ten Yellow belt techniques were to be brought back for everyone in 1991, I had started to learn them much earlier. The knew "changed techniques" break rules for the most part and are not part of the original system. The important thing to understand is that the Original Yellow Techniques give you an overview of how the entire system is built, I do this analysis quite often in my black belt classes. ALso, the original orders were eventually changed and were to be brought back also, but Mr. Parker passed before this was done. The original orders are also designed to help you study the system with key themes, etc. and should not be changed - they were created by Ed Parker, order changes later were done by other black belts. Anyway, I could go on forever. In AKI we study the original system and that has given me an excitement about Ed parker's Kenpo to this very day and will forever - I sometimes get so overwhelmed at how much I have to teach my Black Belts and do not now what to do next, this is a good problem and a testament at what a genius of the art Master Parker really was!
intresting aggressive twins is on our orange belt chart but spreading branch is on none of my charts... dont know that one... but i came acroos intellectual departure at a seminar or something along time ago...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2005, 2:18 pm

October 29th, 2007, 4:49 pm #6

I teach the originals as they are extremely important parts of our systems' blueprint, especially when talking about category completion. I know the story behind the changes (probably not in its entirety) and I think they don't make much sense. Let's take sword and hammer for example. In my opinion, if you hit the guy in the throat it's quite possible that you won't get the second shot in since you will be sending him back. Furthermore, the technique violates the rule of always facing your work. I understand that there can be exceptions to the rule, but in that technique, to make it more realistic, you could step into him (engaging)and driving him back so that you have a strong bracing angle and can continue to drive if need be. But, if you did that it would violate the idea that a beginner should always retreat as it makes more sense than to step into danger.

Now let's look at the original technique that sword and hammer replaced--Intellectual Departure. First of all, when the technique as changed, so was the attack. Obviously Intellectual Departure comes from a right front kick. Now earlier we learn to go to the outside of the leg with Deflecting Hammer and I teach it with hands up as if to say, "I don't want any trouble." Why? Because the hands are in a loaded position to drop. I don't want to chance bringing my hands up and then bringing the right hand back down for the parrying block. The kick will probably be too fast. With that being said, we need to know what to do if our hands are down. That is where Intellectual Departure comes in. You need it there. Also, lets look at the block we use (Inward downward palm down block). Without Intellectual Departure this block is not put into combative use until much later in the system. Yes it is in Long 1, but that is not a combative form, nor is that demonstrating a combative situation.

I could go on forever, but I am sure you get the point. You need the original techniques. I also know the other three as they were originally taught to me. I didn't learn the originals until much later into my training.

Yours,

Michael Miller, CKF
www.millersdojo.com
...with your assessment and that of Mr. Cogliandro.
I teach and test the original 10 and believe most of the schools that fall under Mr. Wedlake's supervision do, too.

I also teach the other three techniques - after the student has tested for yellow. I want them to know the techniques if they should ever go to a different studio but don't want the student to think their promotion to yellow is conditional to their learning the other 3.

Take it out on the heavy bag,

Chuck Peterson
peterson_charlie@hotmail.com

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 9th, 2007, 11:54 pm

October 29th, 2007, 5:24 pm #7

intresting aggressive twins is on our orange belt chart but spreading branch is on none of my charts... dont know that one... but i came acroos intellectual departure at a seminar or something along time ago...
IF YOU SEND ME YOUR E-MAIL I WILL BE GLAD TO SEND YOU THE TEN ORIGINAL YELLOW BELT TECHNIQUES WITH DESCRIPTIONS OR ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE WHO WOULD LIKE THEM. TONY C

COGLI@VERIZON.NET
Last edited by 4772748 on October 29th, 2007, 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2004, 1:04 am

October 29th, 2007, 10:17 pm #8

The first manual I purchased from Mr. Parker had the Original Ten techniques, that was in the beginning of 1983. Later , toward the end of that year or beginning of the next a new manual came out. This one had Agressive Twins, Spreading Branch and Intellectual Departure removed, as well as , Checking the Storm changed with a chicken kick. Mr. Parker explained to me later that one of his close Black Belts at the time had mentioned that these original four techniques were to brutal to be taught to white belts, due mainly to the kicking of the knees, so he allowed him to make some replacements. They were Alternating Mace, sword and hammer and captured twigs and changed checking the storm. He allowed this for reasons, that I will leave off this site for now. The original Ten Yellow belt techniques were to be brought back for everyone in 1991, I had started to learn them much earlier. The knew "changed techniques" break rules for the most part and are not part of the original system. The important thing to understand is that the Original Yellow Techniques give you an overview of how the entire system is built, I do this analysis quite often in my black belt classes. ALso, the original orders were eventually changed and were to be brought back also, but Mr. Parker passed before this was done. The original orders are also designed to help you study the system with key themes, etc. and should not be changed - they were created by Ed Parker, order changes later were done by other black belts. Anyway, I could go on forever. In AKI we study the original system and that has given me an excitement about Ed parker's Kenpo to this very day and will forever - I sometimes get so overwhelmed at how much I have to teach my Black Belts and do not now what to do next, this is a good problem and a testament at what a genius of the art Master Parker really was!
It is very important for those who teach the art with the knowledge of "Catagory Completion" and know how to cross relate these
original techniques.
In the CKF we have the techniques Spreading Branch,Aggressive Twins,Intellectual Departure and the Pincher as part of our curriculum.
Mr.C it is always refreshing to hear your comments about topics like this as it makes things interesting on a historical level.
TCB...Sean Kelley
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 23rd, 2004, 2:34 pm

October 30th, 2007, 12:24 am #9

I was just curious; if Intellectual departure is considered one of the 10 master key self-defense techniques, why isn't it in the American Kenpo cirriculum as outlined in volume 5 of Infinite Insights. I also haven't seen it in other cirriculum's. Who is still teaching it and when and why was it removed from the cirriculum?

Personally I like the technique and still teach it and play with it. Hopefully someone has the answer it's one of about a hundred nagging questions I have.
We have both the "old" and the "new" techs in the curriculum I learn. I have to say, I much prefer the old ones. Sometimes the best thing about the new ones is the discussion they bring up. :/

But, they all have value. Just not equal value.

Peace,
Scott
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 14th, 2005, 5:16 am

October 31st, 2007, 4:44 am #10

Discussing and observing the AK of old and Tracy's tech's then seeing you writing about the time frame of 1983 as if it is old is amusing.

The reason I mention that is The Tracy's and EPJr were doing it in the late 50's and early 60's The Tracy group did not stray and now you are talking the old as in 25 years after it started.

Or am I confused?

Kenpo Karate and AK, Tracy's, and then EPAK when the II books came out in the 80's Right?
Then you have the Encyclopedia that was published after EPSr's passing (EPJr finished it) which helps set it straight. Now the Kempo Kards to reinforce that???

Regards,
Gary

Last edited by BGile on October 31st, 2007, 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share