> Discussion: Does anyone object to someone providing
> so much access to the material? I believe that the
> style is what is taught to the student but the
martial
> art is what he/she makes of it, but does that mean
> there should be unfettered access to those tools
that
> make your art?
>
> Tim

I don't think it's bad to provide access to material,
especially hard to find material. I believe doing
things like this will help foster discussion and
possibly a consensus on how things should be done.

Over the years, I've noticed that different folks from
the same style do things differently or understand
things differently. At first, i thought that was cool
but now I'm starting to think that it leads to
fracturing or diluting of a style. Maybe that's
inevitable.

However, it would be nice to have some sort of
standards that we can adhere to. Or at least some sort
of minimal requirements. Maybe an independent board to
help instructors keep up their quality.

That being said, I'm the worst offender to my own
standardization ideal. I've taken SKK and merged what
I've learned of KGS (it's parent style) into it. Most
of the old KGS material is Kajukenbo, so I added a
little of that here and there to flesh out the "holes"
in my material.

I've also taken out things that just didn't fit from
my perspective...the pinans. They weren't karate's
pinans and they didn't fit with other techniques in
kempo. They felt like a big band-aid to make it more
karate like. IMHO, either do the real karate pinan
katas or don't.

Now the kajukenbo pinans/palamas/monkey dances are so
much like the #kata katas that they scream to be
requirements. Yet most SKKers don't know them. What do
we do?

From Matt's site (just a quick once over), I see some
similarities and some differences. Mostly in the realm
of kempos...which are by nature variants or
adaptations. I'd like to sit down and go over it more
thoroughly since it looks very impressive and helpful
to any SKKer at any level.

Sifu Bry
"the rambler"