# The True System



## MJS (Jan 22, 2007)

Looking at some articles online, it seems that there are articles out that raise questions as to things that used to be in Kenpo but were changed and/or removed.  Specifically, I'm referring to things posted here.





> Parker then began to criticize the Tracy brothers, by saying they had never learned his complete system. But this put him on unstable ground. After all, Ed had left Professor Chow in 1954, and with the exception of 3 weeks in September-October 1959, never studied with him again. Ed could, therefore, not have learned Professor Chow's complete system either, as that system was not developed until shortly before his death in 1987. The fact is, the Tracy brothers learned Professor Chow's complete system of Original Kenpo as he taught it to Ed Parker. That system was virtually unchanged from what Professor Chow taught Will Tracy between 1959-1964. *The Tracy brothers also learned Ed Parker's complete system of Traditional Kenpo that he taught between 1960 and 1965. Further, Ed Parker consulted with the Tracy brothers on all the changes he made to his system until 1981. They rejected those changes and refused to incorporate them into their system.*





Now, I have not read every article word for word, so perhaps I'm missing something.  Maybe my answers are in one of the articles, but I overlooked it.  In any case, reading the above quote it seems to me that there are some major differences between the Tracy/Parker systems.  Why did the Tracys' reject the changes?  Why did Parker feel it was necessary to make the changes?  Are the Tracys' teaching the true Kenpo system?



Mike


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 22, 2007)

Mike I'm no Kenpo expert so I will put in my opinion over the years, the Tracey rejected Parker changes do to the fact they was different from the original way they where tought or at least that has been what was explained to me.

On making the changes it was to make it more modern and easier for the Western civilins to learn it or that is what I have heard.

Please do not qoute me on this but this is my understanding to the whole subject matter, it does goes alot deeper than this I know but I really do not know the whole story.

Just my opinion the way I have been told.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 22, 2007)

ooh boy, can of worms, again.

Mike, I think this excerpt is from Will Tracys website.  Will is sort of the blacksheep of the Tracy group, I think he may not really be officially affiliated anymore, and he is only expressing his own personal opinions, not speaking for the Tracy group as a whole.

I think a lot of what he writes is his version of the truth, which may not be the Whole Truth, or Nothing But The Truth.  

That being said, I don't know what about the changes Mr. Parker made that the Tracys objected to.  I do know that they decided to keep the art the way it was taught to them (more or less), and decided to not incorporate Mr. Parker's changes.  I personally think it was just a different philosophy and vision of where the art should go.  So ultimately they split up and went their own ways.

I just see the two arts as two viable options in the kenpo world.  Each person to decide for themself which method works best for them.


----------



## MJS (Jan 22, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> ooh boy, can of worms, again.


 
Looks around innocently.:angel: 



> Mike, I think this excerpt is from Will Tracys website. Will is sort of the blacksheep of the Tracy group, I think he may not really be officially affiliated anymore, and he is only expressing his own personal opinions, not speaking for the Tracy group as a whole.
> 
> I think a lot of what he writes is his version of the truth, which may not be the Whole Truth, or Nothing But The Truth.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the reply Mike.  As you know, I have a background in EPAK and most recently made the switch to Tracy.  This however has nothing to do with a dislike for EPAK.  I enjoy both, feel that both have alot to offer.  During my web surfing, I came across these articles and was just looking for clarification from some of the folks that have more knowledge of the background. 

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> Looks around innocently.:angel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I didn't figure you were looking to start yet another fight over these articles.  I actually think perhaps it raises some interesting points of discussion, if we can all put aside our defense mechanisms and not get offended by what gets said.  I know these articles have been argued over this site numerous times, don't need to see that again.

So speaking of changes, I know that the Tracys did incorporate their own additions to the art.  I believe a lot of it is borrowed from other Chinese arts.  If you go to the Tracy Kenpo website, there is a link listing everything they teach as part of their system.  It includes a lot of Chinese forms, including Tai Chi, some Chinese weaponry, I think a Japanese sword form, and others.  I never learned this stuff and cannot vouch for the quality of how it is being taught in Tracys.  But this stuff was clearly borrowed from other sources, and was not stuff the Tracys learned from Mr. Parker.  So I guess they have also made changes of their own, for reasons of their own.  

I personally find it all interesting.  The two arts clearly went in different directions.  EPAK whittled the tech lists down, Tracy kept the tech lists and added material borrowed from elsewhere.  Either way, its a WHOLE LOT of material.  I guess it's good to have choices, to find what works best for your, what sparks your interest the most.  That's really how I like to see it, I get tired of the arguments over Tracys vs. Parker, or specifically "Will Tracy is crazy and he is just trashing on Mr. Parker, who is dead and not here to defend himself".  I hope this thread stays away from that, and maybe we can constructively discuss and compare and learn from each other.

I personally am quite sure that there are EPAK people who are really really good; as well as some who are really really lousy. 

The same goes with Tracy people, and any other hybrid or variety of kenpo.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> Looking at some articles online, it seems that there are articles out that raise questions as to things that used to be in Kenpo but were changed and/or removed. Specifically, I'm referring to things posted here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kenpo as taught by Ed Parker is a western system.
Sean


----------



## Blindside (Jan 22, 2007)

Presumably either Chow or Mitose taught "the true system" otherwise no one below them on a lineage chart does, and if the arts that either the Tracy's or Parker taught don't resemble theirs, well it seems like no one is teaching "the true system."

What the Tracy's taught/teach is what Ed Parker taught, AFTER he added new 5 empty hand forms, borrowed two or three from Hung Gar, a staff set, and formalized techs that don't appear in any of the Chow lineages.  Then the Tracy's added a two staff sets, a sword, and a couple forms of their own.  And oddly enough, they don't teach Naihanchi which apparently Mitose did.

What the Tracy's teach is Traditional Kenpo which is a simply a version of one of Ed Parker's evolutions.

Lamont

PS: I don't have anything against the Tracy's, I do a version of Tracy Kenpo.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 22, 2007)

Well, a system should be complete to be called a system. Somewhere, if there's bickerin', sometime, somebody thought something was needed/should be removed. The ideas of what the system should include conflicted.

I used to care about these things, but later found that they were generally based on science and logic, both man-made, and only interpretations of someone's vision of reality. (In a lot of cases, someone who was just out to make a buck)

Definitely train in what feeds your mind and body, but later you have to make the leap into the void. 

(OK, you don't _*have*_ to....that's just my choice.)


----------



## dianhsuhe (Jan 22, 2007)

Parker said that he changed roughly 90% of what he had learned from Professor Chow (and he only studied with Professor for a couple of years).  Even Professor Chow himself made MAJOR changes throughout his Martial Arts career.  

Seems like everyone adds their spin, some have/had the blessing of their teacher some did/do not.  At the end of the day we are all brothers and sisters, although it is more like a foster-home I suppose.   

Have a great night folks!


----------



## Ray (Jan 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> In any case, reading the above quote it seems to me that there are some major differences between the Tracy/Parker systems. Why did the Tracys' reject the changes?  Why did Parker feel it was necessary to make the changes?  Are the Tracys' teaching the true Kenpo system?


I think the Tracy's believe that they are staying true to the art that they were taught and thus reject the "innovation/evolution" introduced by Parker.

Look at the some of the changes that Mr. Parker made.  The first two Tracy Techs are Japanese Sword and Chinese Sword.   Chinese Sword (varation A) is no more than Sword of Destruction without the kick.  Japanese Sword (varation B) is no more than Delayed Sword without the kick.  It could be argued that by keeping those two techs, a system that is (perhaps) more true to the original art is perpetuated.  However, do you really need to learn them or can you learn Delayed Sword (and Sword of Destruction) and extrapolate Chinese & Japanese Sword via the Equation Formula?  Same with some of the other techniques.

I think that the Tracy's system is as true a system as the 154 tech (+96 extensions).  I feel that the EPAK system is more compact, reduces redunancy and was "better thought out" as a "scientific system of study" versus an "art"


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I didn't figure you were looking to start yet another fight over these articles. I actually think perhaps it raises some interesting points of discussion, if we can all put aside our defense mechanisms and not get offended by what gets said. I know these articles have been argued over this site numerous times, don't need to see that again.


 
Agreed.  There was a thread brought over here from KT that was talking about those articles.  I have no desire to beat that horse, just using parts as a ref. point for this thread.



> So speaking of changes, I know that the Tracys did incorporate their own additions to the art. I believe a lot of it is borrowed from other Chinese arts. If you go to the Tracy Kenpo website, there is a link listing everything they teach as part of their system. It includes a lot of Chinese forms, including Tai Chi, some Chinese weaponry, I think a Japanese sword form, and others. I never learned this stuff and cannot vouch for the quality of how it is being taught in Tracys. But this stuff was clearly borrowed from other sources, and was not stuff the Tracys learned from Mr. Parker. So I guess they have also made changes of their own, for reasons of their own.


 
Yes, I looked and saw what you were talking about.  



> I personally find it all interesting. The two arts clearly went in different directions. EPAK whittled the tech lists down, Tracy kept the tech lists and added material borrowed from elsewhere. Either way, its a WHOLE LOT of material. I guess it's good to have choices, to find what works best for your, what sparks your interest the most. That's really how I like to see it, I get tired of the arguments over Tracys vs. Parker, or specifically "Will Tracy is crazy and he is just trashing on Mr. Parker, who is dead and not here to defend himself". I hope this thread stays away from that, and maybe we can constructively discuss and compare and learn from each other.


 
Agreed.  I don't want this thread to turn into a bash session.  I'm hoping that some of the other Tracy people that we have on here, can join in on this thread and clarify some things.   I"m just curious as to why the Tracys opted not to go along with the changes Parker was making.  I'm sure there must've been something they didn't agree upon.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> I"m just curious as to why the Tracys opted not to go along with the changes Parker was making. I'm sure there must've been something they didn't agree upon.


 
Yes, I would be interested in knowing the ins and outs as well.  I think the only account I have seen is Will Tracys, and as we mentioned, it's kind of to be taken with a grain of salt.

I just started retraining my Tracy kenpo with Ted Sumner, who is high up in the Tracy organization.  He began studying under the Tracy brothers back in about 1963 or so.  After I get to know him better and sort of establish myself as a trusted student, maybe I'll see if I can pick his brain a bit and get his perspective and insights.  I've only had one class with him, my second class is tonight.  I don't feel comfortable bringing up politics so soon after beginning with him.  I'll give it some time, and if the opportunity presents itself, I'll ask him.


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jan 26, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Presumably either Chow or Mitose taught "the true system" otherwise no one below them on a lineage chart does, and if the arts that either the Tracy's or Parker taught don't resemble theirs, well it seems like no one is teaching "the true system."
> 
> What the Tracy's taught/teach is what Ed Parker taught, AFTER he added new 5 empty hand forms, borrowed two or three from Hung Gar, a staff set, and formalized techs that don't appear in any of the Chow lineages. Then the Tracy's added a two staff sets, a sword, and a couple forms of their own. And oddly enough, they don't teach Naihanchi which apparently Mitose did.
> 
> ...


 
In addition to Naihanchi, Mitose also taught Naihan No (his version of a Naihachi like wall Kata) and 3 Neko Buto Kata.  Most important of all is the Hachi Henkai Keiho - Octagon drills and forms. Do the Tracys, EPAK, or Kara Ho practice the Octagon?  If so please describe your drills.  I'd like to know what else we have in common. I practice Kosho Shorei.

_Don Flatt


----------



## Blindside (Jan 26, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> In addition to Naihanchi, Mitose also taught Naihan No (his version of a Naihachi like wall Kata) and 3 Neko Buto Kata. Most important of all is the Hachi Henkai Keiho - Octagon drills and forms. Do the Tracys, EPAK, or Kara Ho practice the Octagon? If so please describe your drills. I'd like to know what else we have in common. I practice Kosho Shorei.
> 
> _Don Flatt


 
Could you describe the Octagon drill?  It is possible that we do under a different name, but I have no idea.

Thanks,

Lamont


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 26, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> In addition to Naihanchi, Mitose also taught Naihan No (his version of a Naihachi like wall Kata) and 3 Neko Buto Kata.
> _Don Flatt



According to who?  Thomas Young, Adriano Emperado, and others have said that Mitose only taught "Naihanchi Shodan".
In fact, since Mitose only taught them one kata, Young went and learned the Kyokushinkai katas Bobby Lowe got from Mas Oyama in the 50's.


----------



## distalero (Feb 16, 2007)

Only the Tracys can speak for the Tracy's, but I have a (very) small amount of insight as to possibly why: 

 EPAK, from the viewpoint of many students of the "stuff that came before",  is a reduction in material. I know that's apparently inflammatory for some, but it's true that it was looked on as "less than" by many where I practiced, anyhow. I can tell you how it was promoted in my time; "it's breaking things down and simplifying them so you know where the power is, and so that it can be taught the same to everyone". Whether or not that's true, I don't know, but it was said by several trusted teachers of the time. My time came just a little after the break, so I don't speak with "I was there" authority, but it isn't difficult for me to do about a dime's worth of extrapolation and realize that simpler isn't necessarily attractive to guys who put their heart and soul, not to mention their business surival , in something a little different. 

I will say this, though, I rejected it at the time EPAK arrived for the same reason, even when, to be completely frank, I could see that there was some merit to the argument. Mine wasn't a rejection based on what was superior (it was essentially similar), but rather based on the fact that I had been taken under wing and shown principles that addressed that "breaking things down...so you know where the power is" prior to the advent of the simpler material. My natural talent in all of this was speed, so it's not like finding "power points" (old term) wasn't crucial for me, it's just that this was being addressed already by several kind teachers, within the context of the prior material, and I suspect this was done for others as well.


----------



## tigdra (Feb 26, 2007)

**Please read my post not as fact but as my opinions based on my experiences. Do not take any unusual action in your present martial arts study due to anything that I may say. Please do not read my words and think that I am stating facts, these comments are only ment for conversational purposes.**

(sorry for the disclaimer but I'm not in the mood to get sued or anything of the sort.) 


I hate to be the barer of bad news, but I think there is one situation that hasn't been thought of. 

What if the tracys got the entire system but no longer teach it due to what ever may be. 

Could be that they don't remember all the material, have changed somethings because they felt it wasn't usefull or it could be that they no longer feal that the masses are worthy of such information. 

I only present this possibility because I have some insight on the subject and the possibility that one of these are true. 

I will keep my source a secret for obvious reasons, but I have been told by a very reliable person, on numerous occasions, that the tracys have forgotten some of the material and have filtered in some of their own. 

I didn't believe it but I then also bought one of tracy's videos and was suprised to see how sloppy and incomplete his technique was. Not only that but Mr. Tracy admits, in this video, to changing some things. 

I would love to go into more detail but I think it is wise for me to keep it simple so not to expose myself and my sources.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 26, 2007)

tigdra said:


> I hate to be the barer of bad news, but I think there is one situation that hasn't been thought of.
> 
> What if the tracys got the entire system but no longer teach it due to what ever may be.


 
Not *GASP* change.....

Everyone who has touched what we call kenpo in the past 60 years has changed it.  Chow did, Parker did, Emperado did, and many of Parkers students have as well.  Yes the Tracy's have changed some things, added several forms, added variations onto techs they have learned, they even *GASP* changed an angle in Form 5, and they had the nerve to invent a Forms 6,7, and 8 for themselves after they left Parker.

So what???

Lamont


----------



## Jdokan (Feb 26, 2007)

I agree with the last comment. I think evrybody pretty much changes or tweaks things. Sometimes it is done I believe to create distance from what their Instructor did/does...And can't that be a good thing? My instructor had very powerful upperbody strength I don't have that same strength, therefore techniques that work well for him don't work for me...With modifications (sometimes minor other times major) made that tend to work better is more important to me than trying to maintain the originality. I don't make changes just to make them, each change is after much deliberation. Example with #39 (Villari System) I was taught #4 block, stepping l/f to 3:00, spin cw striking with r/h spinning backfist, l/h thrust punch/ r/h thrust punch (midsection), r/roundhouse elbow face, l/h thrust punch (midsection), r/h backfist face. This whole technique was done directly in front of the attacker just off center in alignment with their left side....I always felt uncomfortable being direclty in front of their left punching hand....I have altered it using all the same strikes but working to the opposite side on the outside of their r/side....The block is the same but I step the l/foot to my 9:00 position I still spin into the backfist striking their right side of neck&face..I then continue my rotation stepping (with my l/f) behind them, the 2 thrust punches go to the kidneys, the rhouse elbow strikes the "knockout" area behind the right ear, r/h thrust again to the l/kidney, r/backfist to the other side of the head behind the ear....

The reason I felt this change made sense for me was to get away from the second (possibly) punching hand....

To my instructor the change probably won't make sense...but for me it makes the technique safer and feel more confident....

What are thougts on this???


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 27, 2007)

tigdra said:


> **Please read my post not as fact but as my opinions based on my experiences. Do not take any unusual action in your present martial arts study due to anything that I may say. Please do not read my words and think that I am stating facts, these comments are only ment for conversational purposes.**
> 
> (sorry for the disclaimer but I'm not in the mood to get sued or anything of the sort.)
> 
> ...


 

Well,  I am currently training under a very senior instructor in Tracys, someone who has been with them since about 1964 or so, and I can say that he certainly knows his stuff inside and out and upside down.  Does he even do some things differently from how they are printed in the manuals?  Yup, that's just based on his own experience in other arts and a career in law enforcement.  But it's still the same stuff.  And he seems to be teaching the material very openly to his students.  I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like he's holding back all the "secrets", for a special group of "indoor" students.

Have the Tracys "forgotten", or changed things?  Probably.  We can't remember everything we experience in life.  If you go to their website, you will see that they have included material from Chinese sources, things that they definitely did not learn from Mr. Parker.  So obviously they did change things, as well as keep other things the same.  

I've seen tech videos that were produced by Mr. Tracy back in about 1980 or so.  I also thought it looked pretty sloppy.  But these videos were really only meant to be frame of reference for people who already know the material.  I don't believe they were meant to teach all the little details, nor even to really show the tech done at realistic speed.  They just show the gross movement as a reminder.  So it's important to keep things in perspective.

My suspicion is that what you suggest is not true.  There are a lot of politics on martial arts, especially in kenpo.  Could be that your source is wrapped up in something that he is angry about, and wants to plant some bad seeds.  I wouldn't buy his story...


----------



## tigdra (Mar 4, 2007)

Or he could be a dedicated successful student that has no grudges with the Tracy's 

The truth will come out in time or never at all.

I personally don't care about "The True Original System" If I did then I wouldn't have studied kenpo I would have studied shaolin kung fu. 

What I care about is that when I go to my lesson and I learn something worth learning, and when I teach, I teach something worth learning. 

I'm just interested in learning somthing worth learning and not wasting my time


----------



## Jeff Harvey (Dec 16, 2007)

I have only one thing to say.  "purity exists only when pure knuckles meet pure flesh"  - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 23, 2007)

John Bishop said:


> According to who? Thomas Young, Adriano Emperado, and others have said that Mitose only taught "Naihanchi Shodan".
> In fact, since Mitose only taught them one kata, Young went and learned the Kyokushinkai katas Bobby Lowe got from Mas Oyama in the 50's.


 
Thank you John.

I wondered when someone would start with the questions others don't want to ask.

Another question is "when"?

Another question is "For what purpose"?

Hahaha.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 23, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Have the Tracys "forgotten", or changed things? Probably. We can't remember everything we experience in life. If you go to their website, you will see that they have included material from Chinese sources, things that they definitely did not learn from Mr. Parker. So obviously they did change things, as well as keep other things the same.
> 
> My suspicion is that what you suggest is not true. There are a lot of politics on martial arts, especially in kenpo. Could be that your source is wrapped up in something that he is angry about, and wants to plant some bad seeds. I wouldn't buy his story...


 
I agree with you pretty much.

I really don't think that the Tracy's forgot much according to the story I heard from those that were there.  Since Jim and Al (sometimes Will) were the ones running Ed's studio, and they are the ones that took all the notes every night after their lessons, filmed the materials and wrote the manuals...

And when they left, they TOOK IT ALL with them, leaving no copies for Ed.

I won't go over what else I was told of back then.

And this is not to "upset" any one or to "burst any tiny bubbles" but to answer the original questions put up by the thread starter.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## curious1 (Dec 24, 2007)

lets try this again


----------



## curious1 (Dec 24, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Could you describe the Octagon drill?  It is possible that we do under a different name, but I have no idea.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lamont



 Basically, our octagon drills are to build leg strength, stances and, more importantly eight angles of the jumping patterns. For the more seasoned practitioners the escaping arts.


7 down 8 up

Ken Torres


----------



## bdparsons (Dec 29, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I personally am quite sure that there are EPAK people who are really really good; as well as some who are really really lousy.
> 
> The same goes with Tracy people, and any other hybrid or variety of kenpo.


 
Truer words were never spoken.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## KenpoDave (Dec 31, 2007)

tigdra said:


> What if the tracys got the entire system but no longer teach it due to what ever may be.


 
Hmmm.  Is there stuff in the system that was there when the Tracy's left that the Tracy's no longer teach?



> Could be that they don't remember all the material, have changed somethings because they felt it wasn't usefull or it could be that they no longer feal that the masses are worthy of such information.


 
#1 - I doubt it.  They wrote everything down, filmed it, and I know that Al Tracy has an excellent memory.  
#2 - I doubt it.  On one of the tapes, he goes so far as to point out a technique that is absolutely useless, but is left in the system for historical purposes.  In other places, he mentions encouraging people to change (add) things for the better, provided that nothing is taken away.
#3 - Basing this off the tapes and manuals, I can see your point.  However, that is just the curriculum.  The real depth of material comes from taking lessons from Mr. Tracy or from instructors that can provide that depth.  Question to Al Tracy at a seminar in 2000:  "Why are there 5 variations to Front Bearhug in Orange Belt?"  Answer:  "Because I didn't want to write the other 81 down."



> I only present this possibility because I have some insight on the subject and the possibility that one of these are true.


 
Which one.



> I will keep my source a secret for obvious reasons, but I have been told by a very reliable person, on numerous occasions, that the tracys have forgotten some of the material and have filtered in some of their own.


 
I would love to know your source, for obvious reasons.  I have trouble believing that material has been forgotten.  I do know that material has been added.



> I didn't believe it but I then also bought one of tracy's videos and was suprised to see how sloppy and incomplete his technique was. Not only that but Mr. Tracy admits, in this video, to changing some things.


 
What are you basing "incomplete" on?  The current version of EPAKK?  Which current version?  Techniques compared to techniques with extensions?  Or by incomplete, do you mean the technique was not finished, as in, the opponent was not incapacitated?  



> I would love to go into more detail but I think it is wise for me to keep it simple so not to expose myself and my sources.


 
Depends on your goal.


----------



## Doc (Dec 31, 2007)

What &#8220;system&#8221; are we talking about here? Parker? Tracy? A little perspective is needed. Neither is a true &#8220;one way system.&#8221; Both have always been in a state of change, and regardless of school or lineage, what you get will always depend on the teacher. There are aspects to both lineages that contain methodologies that are not readily available to all in the same &#8220;system lineage.&#8221;

True system? What true system? Certainly William Chow didn&#8217;t have one. He had no set techniques, and others just took notes of what he was doing or wanted to teach. Even this changed over time, and with whom he was teaching.  William Chow never wrote a system.

The same is true of Ed Parker. He switched around continuously finding his way and had at least 4 or 5 discernable distinctive shifts even in philosophy and methodology. None of them were &#8220;finished.&#8221; Everything was always in a state of change. This is one of the reasons he lost students. He was evolving, experimenting, and changing. Students wanted to learn one way and move on to rank.

No different than today. If you are with an instructor who is evolving, and you&#8217;re looking for rank, it can be frustrating. If you want rank you should study with someone who just teaches by the book, whatever that book is.

Al taught for Ed Parker and took a lot of notes. Parker took notes from Chow. None of these &#8220;notes&#8217; were comparable because of the constant change. Al was caught in the transition from &#8220;Kenpo-Karate&#8221; brought from Hawaii, and the Chinese-Kenpo Parker was moving toward.

When Parker decided to make another major shift for reasons of his own, he broke away from the yudanshakai and organization he created to form a separate single entity lead organization to expand the business of kenpo. Al and Jim were left with the previous organization and continued to head up the Japanese based yudanshakai, while themselves beginning a Chinese-Kenpo era of their own. Ultimately they shifted lineage to the Mitose Line for reasons of their own. In the early days of departure, The Tracy&#8217;s were much more successful business-wise than Ed Parker. He often spoke of how much he learned from their business experience in deciding what and how he wanted to pursue proliferation. 

It was Apple versus PC all over again. Parker was open source with his affiliate schools. They owned everything and looked to Parker for the &#8220;systems&#8221; of business and Kenpo, along with promotions, materials, and organizational association.

The Tracy&#8217;s were closed source in the beginning. Very successfully, they sold franchises for the then new &#8220;Tracy Kenpo,&#8221; and proliferated. They had a fiduciary relationship with the school owners teaching their system. In some instances they actually owned the schools and had employees all over the place. 

Parker never actually owned more than two schools at anyone time. Additionally his fiduciary relationship with his schools in the early days was always &#8220;informal.&#8221; This allowed many to walk away and move on their own once they had learned enough Kenpo and the business from Parker.

But like the Tracy&#8217;s, Parker always remained cordial with the bulk of the defectors. Parker supported them, promoted them, and maintained as much of a business relationship as possible. They bought his patches, books, belts, promotion, seminars, and came to the I.K.C. In some instances, Parker even helped them write books.

But, let&#8217;s get back to the mythical system. Al was a smart guy, and knew what his own limitations were in the art. Whatever he wanted in the system that he didn&#8217;t have, he would pay a noted master to teach himself and his select people. I say selected because everyone didn&#8217;t get everything. Much like Parker, AL picked and chose who got what and when. To this day there are Tracy teachers who are light years away from other Tracy people of the same rank. No different than Parker&#8217;s people. Al was even smart enough to hire people for his fighting team in the early days, so they hit the ground running headed up by Joe Lewis. This also brought the Joe Lewis Fighting System to the Tracy&#8217;s, but I guarantee you, it is not integrated into all of Tracy kenpo, only where Al wants it and with whom.
Just like Parker&#8217;s commercial system, what you get in Tracy&#8217;s kenpo depends upon with whom you study, or studied with and when. Parker&#8217;s &#8220;System&#8221; went in multiple directions over the years, and so did the Tracy&#8217;s. Although they both used different methodologies, they both essentially did the same thing.

However, Parker chose to simplify a lot of material for commercial purposes because of the recommended structure of his affiliate schools. Parker used the Arthur Murray Dance Studio Business Plan that depended upon a few private lessons to ultimately sign, and integrate students into a massive group program. Al Tracy saw the value of private lessons and focused his schools on that method of selling their art.

So you see, no one has a true system. Neither Mitose nor Chow. All, including Parker and Al Tracy, have taught various evolutionary versions of their very diverse art(s) to various people at different points in time, and that continues to play out today. The &#8220;True System&#8221; concept is borrowed from Japanese Culture &#8220;way&#8217;' arts, and even they have their off-shoots and splinter groups throughout their history, all claiming the &#8220;pure system.&#8221; There is no such thing as a pure or true system. What is pure and true is what your teacher teaches you - today. Tomorrow it might be different.

Some suggest that because Tracy had more techniques, that it was more representative of older material, and that Parker dumbed it down for his &#8220;new&#8221; system. On one level that is true. On another Parker chose to philosophically address material with conceptual formulations of execution, while Al chose to memorialize each variation as a separate technique. Sam Ting, different stuff. In Parker&#8217;s commercial system if you began counting all of the prefixes, inserts, suffixes, additions, and alphabetical and mathematical re-arrangements possibilities, you have even more techniques than Tracy&#8217;s Kenpo. Parker chose to allow the student to make personal adjustments for purposes of self-defense. Al wanted to keep his available system more intact.


*&#8220;What the Tracy's teach is Traditional Kenpo which is a simply a version of one of Ed Parker's (many) evolutions.&#8221; *

I couldn&#8217;t have said it better. The efficacy of what you&#8217;re taught depends upon who teaches you, not what anyone chooses to call it.

This is not baseball. It&#8217;s a subjectively learned and taught art with as many variations as there are people who have learned its many diversions. Neither is better than the other, however some instructors truly are. Pick your poison and quitchabitchin.


----------



## bdparsons (Dec 31, 2007)

Doc said:


> The efficacy of what youre taught depends upon who teaches you, not what anyone chooses to call it.


 
This has to be one of the most succinct statements I've heard concerning the martial arts. The who determines the how and the why. Thank you sir, for putting words to reality.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------

