# Chow is in lineage of EPK????



## CoolKempoDude

some people here suggest that AK begins and end with EP.

I just want to know if Prof Chow should be consider in AK's history or lineage.

thanks. Please vote


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

I think Chow deserves credit, as does Mitose, as do many other Kenpo "seniors" who developed and contributed to the art during Mr. Parker's lifetime.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I voted no. Chow and the art he practiced were great influances to the art we know as AK, but if we are going to include Mr. Chow, we should also include Mr Parker's Father, Judo instructor, and Mr. Chow's Brother. Mr.. Parker started a system based on logic. The resourses he drew from were rich, but alas, not Ed Parkers American Kenpo.
Sean


----------



## Seig

I voted yes, but not for lineage purposes.  I think we have to include Mr. Chow in our history though,


----------



## Thesemindz

I think Chow should be taught as part of the family tree as Mr. Parker's teacher and as part of our history, but the poll asked if he should be considered part of the _American_ Kenpo lineage, and I think the answer has to be no. _American_ Kenpo is the creation of Mr. Parker and the lineage of _American_ Kenpo should begin with him. Chow's influence is important however and should not be discarded.

-Rob


----------



## Michael Billings

He is, and was a part of Mr. Parker's lineage early on.  Due to the innovations made by SGM Parker, I hear that Kenpo is 90% his, and 10% his lineage - therefore, I see Mr. Chow as part of our HISTORY, but not necessarily our lineage.

Just my opinion, and not one I feel strongly about.  I see Mr. Parker as being "the source" and that has been good enough for me.

:asian: 
-Michael


----------



## Brian Jones

I have to agree, I would not put him in the lineage, only because the poll said specifically, AK.  Yes he is a part of our history, but let's be honest, if we were to include everyone who influenced Parker to be in our lineage then wwe include, Chow, Henry Okazaki (sp?) Mitose etc.  But we can't stop there becuase logic says we need toinclude all the people who  taught or influenced these teachers.  Where does the lineage stop?
   Not inclcuding them in the lineage, but as a part of our history would still honor their contributions to American Kenpo.

Brian Jones


----------



## CoolKempoDude

The reason why i only asked this question in AK session is people in Kajukenpo, Nick cerios, and so on point their lineage to Chow first and then their grandmaster.

AK people are the only *STAND OUT* *SPECIAL* group WHO simply want EP to be the beginning and the end of AK lineage.

i'm sure this is certainly a good question and comparison and deserve every debates.


----------



## JD_Nelson

Mr. Billings wrote:



> ...Due to the innovations made by SGM Parker, I hear that Kenpo is 90% his, and 10% his lineage...



To me this is the basic definition of a Grand Master.  I think it states in some book that a grand master takes what he has been taught and makes it his own.  

To me this is what begins a senior on his journey to tenth.  Otherwise a person who is a 10 year 9th degree and is teaching the same system of a predecessor may not deserve to wear a 10th yet.   


I agree with Seig, history not lineage.

And I will let the flames begin. 

Salute,

JD


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by JD_Nelson _
> *Mr. Billings wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> To me this is the basic definition of a Grand Master.  I think it states in some book that a grand master takes what he has been taught and makes it his own.
> 
> To me this is what begins a senior on his journey to tenth.  Otherwise a person who is a 10 year 9th degree and is teaching the same system of a predecessor may not deserve to wear a 10th yet.
> 
> 
> I agree with Seig, history not lineage.
> 
> And I will let the flames begin.
> 
> Salute,
> 
> JD *


 I'll buy that, but that but its obviously spreading.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I'll buy that, but that but its obviously spreading.
> Sean *


 But on the other hand why reinvent the wheel?:asian: 
Sean


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

But if you don't include Chow in the lineage...it will appear that the style came out of nowhere.  I don't see how you can talk about the style without including Mr. Parker's influences.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *But if you don't include Chow in the lineage...it will appear that the style came out of nowhere.  I don't see how you can talk about the style without including Mr. Parker's influences. *


But then the next logicle question would be should one seek out Chow's art for a deeper understanding, and I think the answer to that question would be "No; because, it is not the direction we wish to persue." 
Sean


----------



## Brian Jones

> _Originally posted by CoolKempoDude _
> *The reason why i only asked this question in AK session is people in Kajukenpo, Nick cerios, and so on point their lineage to Chow first and then their grandmaster.
> 
> AK people are the only *STAND OUT* *SPECIAL* group WHO simply want EP to be the beginning and the end of AK lineage.
> 
> i'm sure this is certainly a good question and comparison and deserve every debates. *




I don't think the idea is that we are saying Mr. Parker  is the beginning and end of the AK lineage.   We all rcognize that no matter how great (or poor) a martial artist is, we have all been taught by someone.  My question is where does the lineage stop.  Why stop with Chow?  Why not Mitose, Motubu etc.?  
  I do think by making a difference between history and lineage we canboth acknowledge Prof. Chow's importance while recognizing that AK is a distinctive martial art of its own.

Brian Jones


----------



## bdparsons

Mr. Parker clearly gave William K.S. Chow respect for being his instructor and recognition for the influence of his training methods that helped Mr. Parker to become the martial artist he did.

If Mr. Parker recognized him and included him in his lineage, then it's not up to me to recognize him or not. Kinda like removing that grandfather you never really cared for from your family tree. Might make you feel better, but it's just not the truth.

Get a grip, people.

Respects,
Bill Parsons


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I voted no. Chow and the art he practiced were great influances to the art we know as AK, but if we are going to include Mr. Chow, we should also include Mr Parker's Father, Judo instructor, and Mr. Chow's Brother. Mr.. Parker started a system based on logic. The resourses he drew from were rich, but alas, not Ed Parkers American Kenpo.
> Sean *



I agree sir. Lineage is a Japanese concept that has no meaning in a results driven American activity. Lineage is moot without the capability to produce results through skill and knowledge. Not all of the people who received Mr. Parker's name on a certificate were "good." Many were plain lousy for many reasons.

Chow is in Mr. Parker's Lineage but not mine anymore than any of the many other Chinese Grandmasters that Parker learned more from than he ever got from Chow. Parker gave him (Chow) the recognition for being the inspiration for what he developed, nothing more. Lineage, in my opinion, begins and ends with the two individuals involved, and additionally they both must agree to that lineage, or once again it is moot.


----------



## teej

Well now for my two cents. There is a distinction between Kenpo and American Kenpo. American Kenpo did start with and is SGM Ed Parkers' system. Professor Chow is part of our "Kenpo" lineage, but not our "American Kenpo" lineage.

He was "one" of Mr. Parkers instructors. Mr Parker gave Professor Chow a lot of respect. Mr. Chow had at one point early on, planned to come to the states to open a chain of kenpo schools, (this was well before American Kenpo was formed) and he later changed his mind. But if you research Professor Chow and SGM Ed Parker, you will find out that Chow frequently told Mr. Parker that Kenpo had to evolve with the times and that SGM Parker credits Profess Chow with motivating him to adapt Kenpo to the times.

After SGM Ed Parker researched enough, formulated enough, tried and tested material enough, had made enough very distinct changes, modifications and additions, he put his name to the system and called it American Kenpo Karate.

They are several systems of Kenpo or Kempo that have been developed and have roots traced back to Professor Chow. My view is that he, Professor Chow, was very instrumental to Kenpo. He was instrumental to SGM's Kenpo background and you can trace Kenpo lineage through Ed Parker to Professor Chow, but not Amercian Kenpo. American Kenpo is not the Kenpo that Professor Chow taught. It was a new system formulated well after training with Professor Chow stopped. American Kenpo starts with SGM Ed Parker.

I acknowledge Professor Chow as part of my Kenpo lineage, but not my "American Kenpo" lineage. Amercian Kenpo started with SGM Ed Parker and that is where MY Amercian Kenpo lineage ends. (or started, depending how you look at it.)

Your in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## Brother John

Seems to me that Mr. Parker credited Mr. Chow with both history and inspiration and a solid foundation in the basics...
Mr. Parker included him in his history section in "Infinite Insights".
It'd seem a little silly to go leaving him out now.

Your Brother
John


----------



## teej

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. Professor Chow is not left out. He is part of SGM Parkers "Kenpo" lineage. Yes, he is mentioned in "Infinite Insights", but as Mr. Parkers "Kenpo" instructor.

 Professor Chow is not in the American Kenpo lineage.
Chow was Mr. Parkers instructor long before American Kenpo's inception. Professor Chow had not been Mr. Parkers instructor for many years.

Mr. Parker made, constructed, formed, institued, (however you want to put it) American Kenpo Karate. Professor Chow has no part in the formation of material, or the system. He was not around and had no active part in Ed Parkes life at this time, nor any part in his life after American Kenpo Karate was formed.

Mr. Parker started American Kenpo Karate. That is where the lineage of American Kenpo Karate starts. With Ed Parker, there was no one before him on the tree, because he, SGM Parker, started it.

So lets take any student studying Ed Parkers American Kenpo Karate. This student wants to trace his or her "American Kenpo Karate" lineage. The lineage would trace through the instructors, instructor, instructor all the way back to SGM Ed Parker, and it would stop there.

Now this same student wants to trace his or her "Kenpo" lineage. (just plain Kenpo) Now the lineage will go back through his or her instructors, instructors, instructor, eventually getting to Ed Parker, then Professor Chow, then however far back they can trace it.

So again I say, Professor Chow is in Ed Parkers "Kenpo" lineage, but he, Professor Chow, is not on the "American Kenpo Karate" tree.

Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## Kenpomachine

I agree with Teej.

For American Kenpo, it should begin with Ed Parker, for Kenpo, with Chow's instrucotr and before.

And I also agree with Doc Chapél in that if we have to put Chow in the lineage, we should also acknowledge all the chinese masters that helped Mr. Parker defined EPAK as we know it. It's not enough to put the hard style lineage.


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Seems to me that Mr. Parker credited Mr. Chow with both history and inspiration and a solid foundation in the basics...
> Mr. Parker included him in his history section in "Infinite Insights".
> It'd seem a little silly to go leaving him out now.
> 
> Your Brother
> John *



Mr. Chow was not the one who gave Mr. Parker "a solid foundation in the basics"  Mr. Parker developed his own ideas in basics through many advisors.  Look at the tapes from his early years to the middle years to the latter years.  Mr. Parker became self correcting through the concepts, theories and principles he developed with his people and through other people he worked out with.  

I beleive Mr. Chow was accredited with teaching Mr. Parker about master key movements.  This particular concept is very large and has much meaning.  Mr. Parker completely evolved the way he did basics from the days of Mr. Chows instruction.    

History of Kenpo- yes... The only problem with martial arts history is it's value.  More nostalgic than anything else.  Kinda reminds me of people that try to hold onto their family heritage... if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there?


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *  Kinda reminds me of people that try to hold onto their family heritage... if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there? *


I'm not sure I like your analogy, I don't fault my Irish heretage for the potato famine. The government at the time had no concept of soil management, Or I could fault England for not lifting a finger to feed those starving. Most governing methods of the past just couldn't deal with heavy populations. The problems that sent People to America were political and had nothing to do with heretage.
Sean


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *I'm not sure I like your analogy, I don't fault my Irish heretage for the potato famine. The government at the time had no concept of soil management, Or I could fault England for not lifting a finger to feed those starving. Most governing methods of the past just couldn't deal with heavy populations. The problems that sent People to America were political and had nothing to do with heretage.
> Sean *



Huh?  Read the whole thing, not just parts.  It's about evolution not government.


----------



## CoolKempoDude

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *
> 
> 1-Mr. Chow was not the one who gave Mr. Parker "a solid foundation in the basics"
> 
> 2-if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there? *



1- Everything i have read here is telling me Chow was a kick *** fighter and produced a lot of grandmasters. Be careful what you are saying.

if Chow didn't give Parker a solid foundation in the basic, how Mr Emperado came up with his kenpo in his Art????.

 If you were NOT there when Chow taught Parker, i suggest you to keep this BS statement for yourself

this is the FIRST time in my life i hear such statement about Chow's teaching here

2- Why don't you ask your GREAT GREAT GREAT grandparents about this before asking everybody that question?????


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

EPAK practitioners can start their "lineage" graphs anywhere they want.  But, there are many other branches of Kenpo and many related arts.  If you think that Chow had no influence, then you need to take a look at this.

http://www.interactivesmack.com/kajukenbo/kenpofamilytree.cfm


----------



## CoolKempoDude

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *
> 
> http://www.interactivesmack.com/kajukenbo/kenpofamilytree.cfm *



your link doesnt work. please check.

thanks


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

http://www.interactivesmack.com/kajukenbo/kenpofamilytree.cfm

Actually, I posted the correct link, but MT doesn't display it properly...

"http://www.interactivesmack.com/kajukenbo/kenpofamilytree.cfm"


----------



## Ceicei

> _Originally posted by CoolKempoDude _
> *your link doesnt work. please check.
> 
> thanks *



The original link worked fine for me.  Even when OFK reposted the links, they still worked fine.  You might want to retry the links.

- Ceicei


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Mr. Chow was not the one who gave Mr. Parker "a solid foundation in the basics"  Mr. Parker developed his own ideas in basics through many advisors.  Look at the tapes from his early years to the middle years to the latter years.  Mr. Parker became self correcting through the concepts, theories and principles he developed with his people and through other people he worked out with*


Chad: Don't be silly. 
I never said that Mr. Parker didn't go light-years beyond what Mr. Chow gave him. I said that as Mr. Parker's Kenpo instructor was Mr. Chow...Mr. Chow gave him his foundation. A foundation is something you build from, Mr. Parker did become 'self-correcting', a teacher of himself...but he didn't make the basics up, he refined them and sophisticated their execution. I didn't say he didn't develop, but that he started (foundation) with Chow.
Obviously Chow was an 'inspirational' person; look how many fine arts had their start in the minds and hands of his students.
I don't see the big hang-up here Chad.
You don't like Prof. Chow in your lineage? Don't tell your students about him. It really doesn't matter does it? 



> I beleive Mr. Chow was accredited with teaching Mr. Parker about master key movements.


How the heck did he accomplish This lesson without first having a common knowledge of the movements? That'd be a 'foundational' knowledge huh?
jeez...



> History of Kenpo- yes... The only problem with martial arts history is it's value. More nostalgic than anything else. Kinda reminds me of people that try to hold onto their family heritage... if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there?


You don't 'value' heritage? Ok. That's your problem. What's wrong with nostalgia? People are highly motivated in many areas of life by nostalgia. You have a problem with "family heritage"? That too is your problem. Some people find a great deal of inspiration and pride in this; it also helps motivate us to keep up the high standards and honor of their families; to give the same pride and legacy to their children.
I don't 'try to hold onto' my family heritage, I live it. No I can't speak Scottish or German or French... the language isn't the heritage... it's the history. The faith, the family stories...even a crest or 'coat-of-arms' or two...traditions, etc. these are a big part of the heritage.
what of it?
There was nothing wrong with my families countries of origin. Nothing. No famine, no outlandish oppression... but they took what they had that was good (heritage?) and brought it to a land of even greater opportunities; more chances to grow and exhibit the quality that each generation gave to the next.

...I could go on, but the argument's gone flat.
aka; not worth it.

Me-thinks you struck the wrong cord with your somewhat zenophobic analogy.


Your Bro.
John


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Huh?  Read the whole thing, not just parts.  It's about evolution not government. *


I read the whole thing. I'm sure TOD did too.
YOU read this, tell me if it's about "evolution"....


> Kinda reminds me of people that try to hold onto their family heritage... if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there?


You may think that this is out of context. 
Personally, I don't see how it fit in 'context' with everything else you were trying to say.
Sounded just inflamatory.


Your Bro.
John


----------



## CoolKempoDude

we need to put this in our thick skull.

 We don't know how to fight automatically after we were born. Somebody will teach us how to fight.

whether you recognize somebody in your lineage is morally obligation.

kenpo/kempo is not here recently. it began thousand years ago and we are still talking about it.

you may have your own system and teach your own way but you should not forget your teacher.

other grandmasters acknowledge their own *teachers* in their lineage.

why AK is so special???? i don't know

chow is not a bad person to put in your lineage. the fact that your GM learned from him and you recognize it in your lineage is something your AK people should be proud of.


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Chad: Don't be silly.
> I never said that Mr. Parker didn't go light-years beyond what Mr. Chow gave him. I said that as Mr. Parker's Kenpo instructor was Mr. Chow...Mr. Chow gave him his foundation. A foundation is something you build from, Mr. Parker did become 'self-correcting', a teacher of himself...but he didn't make the basics up, he refined them and sophisticated their execution. I didn't say he didn't develop, but that he started (foundation) with Chow.
> Obviously Chow was an 'inspirational' person; look how many fine arts had their start in the minds and hands of his students.
> I don't see the big hang-up here Chad.
> You don't like Prof. Chow in your lineage? Don't tell your students about him. It really doesn't matter does it?
> 
> 
> How the heck did he accomplish This lesson without first having a common knowledge of the movements? That'd be a 'foundational' knowledge huh?
> jeez...
> 
> 
> You don't 'value' heritage? Ok. That's your problem. What's wrong with nostalgia? People are highly motivated in many areas of life by nostalgia. You have a problem with "family heritage"? That too is your problem. Some people find a great deal of inspiration and pride in this; it also helps motivate us to keep up the high standards and honor of their families; to give the same pride and legacy to their children.
> I don't 'try to hold onto' my family heritage, I live it. No I can't speak Scottish or German or French... the language isn't the heritage... it's the history. The faith, the family stories...even a crest or 'coat-of-arms' or two...traditions, etc. these are a big part of the heritage.
> what of it?
> There was nothing wrong with my families countries of origin. Nothing. No famine, no outlandish oppression... but they took what they had that was good (heritage?) and brought it to a land of even greater opportunities; more chances to grow and exhibit the quality that each generation gave to the next.
> 
> ...I could go on, but the argument's gone flat.
> aka; not worth it.
> 
> Me-thinks you struck the wrong cord with your somewhat zenophobic analogy.
> 
> 
> Your Bro.
> John *



1. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins

2. My family heritage is American

3. My martial art is American Kenpo

4. Ed Parker developed the art of American Kenpo

5. Xenophobia is fear of foreigners- Heritage is something passed down.  What are you talking about "Bro John"?

6. If you get a chance to veiw tapes of Mr. Parker's history you will see what I mean.  What Mr. Parker did was develope a language to go with the movements and to aid in refinement.   This is THE difference Brother John.  Mr. Parker's basics were different in his own art than they were in Chow's art.   You can start with the Nuetral bow.  That was non-existant in the early footage I have seen.  In  American Kenpo you are always in and out of the nuetral bow... see what I mean yet?

7.  The "foundational knowledge"  good one.  Not really, Mr. Chows art did not have forms... some say that is 1/3 of our art...  Some say an "internal" aspect of our art.  Who taught Mr. Parker the value of forms?   Our art clearly has a chinese flavor hence the writing on the patch in book 1, fill in the gaps yourself.      

8.  I am pro American and pro American Kenpo.   American Kenpo started with Mr. Parker end of story.  This is an EPAK forum not a general Kenpo forum.   

9. Now John, it is okay by me if you have a facination with the occult and belong to the free masons...   Because one of my grandfathers belonged to that cult it would be in my heritage right?   NO.  We as Americans have the right to pick and choose as we like.  The only thing we are bound by is the Law.   


For the coolkempodude

No one in my family ever flew the union jack,  it was stars and stripes all the way baby.   I never knew anyone in my family to be anything else even if they were of chinese, japanese or mexican backgrounds.  My family is enormous so we pretty much have all the races.  There are no Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Irish-Americans, European-Americans or anything else.  We are all just American even if not all born here.

Were you there?  Do you know anything about  American Kenpo?  Do you even know what the Basics in American Kenpo are?


----------



## teej

CoolKempoDude, you posted the original post and it seems somewhere throughout all this, the posts have gone off in several directions.

The original question "suggests that AK (American Kenpo) begins and ends with EP". It did not say "Kenpo" it said "American Kenpo". Ed Parker practioners make a distinction of "American Kenpo". It is NOT the same Kenpo that Ed Parker taught when he first came to the mainland as he learned from Professor Chow. You should already know the history of how years later, he formed his "OWN SYSTEM".

If you look at Mr. Bishops lineage chart, it appears to be very accurate trace of "Kenpo". You will also see on his chart that after certain names he has (**) to show Kenpo teachers that have started their own sub system of Kenpo.

All of these Kenpo sub systems started with the instructors that formulated them, (ie, the names with the ** after them).

SGM Ed Parker's American Kenpo Karate, starts with him, Ed Parker. That is where the term "AMERICAN Kenpo Karate" came from. Not with Chow. The same with all the other sub system names. They are also distinct with Chow being in their "Kenpo" lineage, but not their sub-systems lineage.

Now looking at the Bishop chart, do you see who the first one to form a Kenpo sub system was??? Professor Chow forming Kara Ho Kempo Karate! Mitose is not in the Kara Ho Kempo Karate tree. Hoon Chow is not in the Kara Ho Kempo Karate tree, because Kara Ho is a Kenpo sub system. However; Hoon Chow and Mitose are at the top of the tree of "Kenpo". (unless someone else goes and traces it back further than these two men.)

And on another point, to my knowledge, all of these Kenpo sub system originators have been respectful of Professor Chow and acknowlege him in their "KENPO" (just plain old kenpo) training.

So yes Professor Chow is around the top of the kenpo lineage, yes there were others before him going back hundreds of years.
The people that you are hearing say that Professor Chow is not part of American Kenpo is because they understand AK as a sub system of what Chow taught. If you go back and ask any of them again and make the distinction of American Kenpo, and just Kenpo, I feel confident that they will give Professor Chow his place towards the top of Kenpo lineage.

Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## Michael Billings

But Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, (note: I did not call it American Kenpo), was never called _American Kenpo_ until after Mr. Parker's death.  The name change has something to do with trademarks and copywrite laws and his estate's trying to retain those ($$$).

I can see it both ways, as Mr. Parker trained with Mr. Chow and his brother, and was already an experience fighter before then.  He was strongly influenced by many other stylist after his moving to the mainland, and maintained strong relationships with many, many, many fellow Martial Artists both here and back in the Islands.  

When I made an earlier statement about "American Kenpo" being 90% his, I was talking about the paradigm shift away from learning basics or techniques, _"because this is how it has always been done"_, to a conceptual framework that was based more and more on Principles, Concepts, and Theories, as he added, pruned, and re-evaluated Kenpo.  Creating Principles and the nomenclature for communicating those to his students.  

You should really sit down and listen to some of the Seniors talk, the men and women training with him in the 60's.  They each have their own perspective of course, but Mr. Parker never denied his history or lineage, but at some point *Kenpo was his, and he was Kenpo ...* his flavor, not anyone else's.  Whether it is the Tracy brothers, breaking off in the early 60's and being more sucessful with his "franchise" idea than he was, or whether from the Emperado lineage, or Kara-ho lineage, I think Mr. Chow has to be credited with teaching Mr. Parker his "foundation" of basics and techniques.  

It has what has happened to Kenpo since then that made it uniquely his.  It is neat to see the divergent points, where different students left him.  I was doing a seminar with a friend, who has been a Dan Inosanto student and instructor, since the late 60's - and lo and behold, he did a version of Gift in Return.  Remembering when Dan Inosanto started studying JKD, or Jun-Fan, with Bruce Lee, the early 60's, it is like seeing a snapshot of the past when I watched someone from another system do a technique I had considered unique to Kenpo.  The same with the old footage from the 1950's, then the Chinese Kenpo of the 1960's (a la Tracys), or Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate of the 1980's.  You see the common thread going back to his original training.  

Certainly the disparity the various stages in the evolution of Mr. Parker's Kenpo makes it difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the "WHEN", as you look for the point at which it became, what Rainman calls "American Kenpo."  That is because Mr. Parker never pinned it down.  Kenpo continued to evolve during his lifetime, both in his hands and his students.  There is no telling where it would be today had he remained with us  ... but there is lots of speculation by those groundfighters out there.

They should look at some of the old Wally Jay tapes I saw, circa 1955 or earlier.  Gee, it looked like BJJ, except standing up and always trying to regain your feet unless going for the finish.  Rough and tumble, they used the guard, got out of it as soon as possible to get back to your feet, in fact they would kick someone out of their guard to regain their feet ... but there was no lack of grappling or finishing holds, just not a lot of rolling around on the ground when facing multiple opponents.  Wally Jay rocked even back then.  

Whoops, I digressed.

Have a good one,
-Michael


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *But Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, (note: I did not call it American Kenpo), was never called American Kenpo until after Mr. Parker's death.  The name change has something to do with trademarks and copywrite laws and his estate's trying to retain those ($$$).
> 
> I can see it both ways, as Mr. Parker trained with Mr. Chow and his brother, and was already an experience fighter before then.  He was strongly influenced by many other stylist after his moving to the mainland, and maintained strong relationships with many, many, many fellow Martial Artists both here and back in the Islands.
> 
> When I made an earlier statement about "American Kenpo" being 90% his, I was talking about the paradigm shift away from learning basics or techniques, "because this is how it has always been done", to a conceptual framework that was based more and more on Principles, Concepts, and Theories, as he added, pruned, and re-evaluated Kenpo.  Creating Principles and the nomenclature for communicating those to his students.
> 
> You should really sit down and listen to some of the Seniors talk, the men and women training with him in the 60's.  They each have their own perspective of course, but Mr. Parker never denied his history or lineage, but at some point Kenpo was his, and he was Kenpo ... his flavor, not anyone else's.  Whether it is the Tracy brothers, breaking off in the early 60's and being more sucessful with his "franchise" idea than he was, or whether from the Emperado lineage, or Kara-ho lineage, I think Mr. Chow has to be credited with teaching Mr. Parker his "foundation" of basics and techniques.
> 
> It has what has happened to Kenpo since then that made it uniquely his.  It is neat to see the divergent points, where different students left him.  I was doing a seminar with a friend, who has been a Dan Inosanto student and instructor, since the late 60's - and lo and behold, he did a version of Gift in Return.  Remembering when Dan Inosanto started studying JKD, or Jun-Fan, with Bruce Lee, the early 60's, it is like seeing a snapshot of the past when I watched someone from another system do a technique I had considered unique to Kenpo.  The same with the old footage from the 1950's, then the Chinese Kenpo of the 1960's (a la Tracys), or Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate of the 1980's.  You see the common thread going back to his original training.
> 
> Certainly the disparity the various stages in the evolution of Mr. Parker's Kenpo makes it difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the "WHEN", as you look for the point at which it became, what Rainman calls "American Kenpo."  That is because Mr. Parker never pinned it down.  Kenpo continued to evolve during his lifetime, both in his hands and his students.  There is no telling where it would be today had he remained with us  ... but there is lots of speculation by those groundfighters out there.
> 
> They should look at some of the old Wally Jay tapes I saw, circa 1955 or earlier.  Gee, it looked like BJJ, except standing up and always trying to regain your feet unless going for the finish.  Rough and tumble, they used the guard, got out of it as soon as possible to get back to your feet, in fact they would kick someone out of their guard to regain their feet ... but there was no lack of grappling or finishing holds, just not a lot of rolling around on the ground when facing multiple opponents.  Wally Jay rocked even back then.
> 
> Whoops, I digressed.
> 
> Have a good one,
> -Michael *



You have some good ideas Mr. B... However I will bet you a t-shirt from your school your time frame on American Kenpo is wrong and the term was coined by Mr. Parker before his death.


----------



## Brother John

A quick recap for those who didnt read through the junk thats come before from rainman and myself:
He made an analogy that didnt work and was inflammatory.
I reacted in kind and was snotty.
He redoubled his efforts, ignored a good point I had and made me sound like some kind of Satanist
Ill pick up from there:

Chad-
Since you gave us the convenient numbers, lets use those.

You said:
#1: Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. 
True in one sense, but I do my work with pride, Im proud of who I am, Im proud to be an American (and a Kansan), I take pride in a job well done I wont apologize for these things.  You can make me out to be a sinner if you like, I know different. 

You said:
#2: My heritage is American. 
Me too! For the last 190 years. Before thatthree European nations. Nothing wrong with that. As Bruce Lee said (at least I think it was him) Tradition is a matter of time, how far back do you want to look?. All Im saying is that I can be a good American and still hold dear to the heritage that my European ancestors handed down. Guess I look back further. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with not doing that.

You said: 
#3: My martial art is American Kenpo.
Me too!
Whats your point?

You said: 
#4: Ed Parker developed the art of American Kenpo. 
Yes he did. He developed it, but not ex-nihilo, he had an instructor that taught him techniques. I personally dont care if you want to call it history, lineage, heritage, family tree or what have you. Semantics are tricky things. In the end everyone knows that Mr. Parker studied Kenpo under Prof. Chow, thats all Im saying. He wasnt his only teacher by FARbut I think he was the foundation. SGM Parker developed Kenpo, a word which means to take a thing and further it. 

You said: 
#5: Xenophobia is fear of foreigners- Heritage is something passed down. What are you talking about "Bro John"?
My point is that you sounded like you were coming down on anyone who appreciates their family heritage. In saying something so rude as if your families country of origin was so great why didn't they stay there? Thats damned rude Chad, offensive beyond need. THATs what I was talking about Rainman. You cant say such tripe and not expect others to respond in kind.
Whats your point Rainman?

You said: 
#6: If you get a chance to veiw tapes of Mr. Parker's history you will see what I mean. What Mr. Parker did was develope a language to go with the movements and to aid in refinement. This is THE difference Brother John. Mr. Parker's basics were different in his own art than they were in Chow's art. You can start with the Nuetral bow. That was non-existant in the early footage I have seen. In American Kenpo you are always in and out of the nuetral bow... see what I mean yet?

Not sure. Sounds like you didnt see a neutral bow in some antiquated footage. I didnt say that Mr. Parkers art wasnt 99.9% different than what he started studying, just that when he started studying it was with Chowwho did teach him fundamentals. Not THE fundamentals the we now have, no. But he did get fundamental instruction from Chow.
So?

You said: 
#7: The "foundational knowledge" good one. Not really, Mr. Chows art did not have forms... some say that is 1/3 of our art... Some say an "internal" aspect of our art. Who taught Mr. Parker the value of forms? Our art clearly has a chinese flavor hence the writing on the patch in book 1, fill in the gaps yourself.

I dont need to fill in any gaps, I understand and agree with this point. No forms before Mr. Parkernow we have forms.
It still doesnt negate the fact that Mr. Parker w/out knowledge in Kenpo (except for the little that Frank gave him) and left Chow with Kenpo knowledge. See my response to #6. Sam Ting. 

You said: 
#8: I am pro American and pro American Kenpo. American Kenpo started with Mr. Parker end of story. This is an EPAK forum not a general Kenpo forum. 

Maybe you are just so high on your high-horse that I cant hear you right.
Whats your point? Are you saying Im NOT pro-American or pro-American Kenpo???
Youd be dead-wrong on either point.
American Kenpo did start with Mr. Parker.
Again: Whats your point?
It still doesnt negate the fact that Mr. Parker studied Kenpo with Mr. Chow
Seems like youre just arguing to be arguing.

You said: 
#9: Now John, it is okay by me if you have a facination with the occult and belong to the free masons... Because one of my grandfathers belonged to that cult it would be in my heritage right? NO. We as Americans have the right to pick and choose as we like. The only thing we are bound by is the Law.

Hmmmmcould this one be THE one where you are just trying to anger me?
Could be.
But I dont care.
A.	I dont have a fascination with the occult. At the time I wrote that into my profile I had been doing a research paper on Carl G. Jungs work with the symbolism of AlchemyI did this for one of my Psychology papers in College. I found his study very very fascinating. You have a problem with that? Does that make me an occultist?
B.	Are you telling me that Freemasonry is a cult? It isnt. Occult means hidden or secret. If I knew the name of the city you lived in I could find the phone numbers, address and names of men in the Lodges near youthats not very secret is it? I dont care to go into it with you, if you really want to find out more- do so on your time. I really dont care how you feel about my fraternity.But in insinuating that Im in the occult or in a cult come on Chad. This form of mudslinging should be below either of us Id think. I am a born-again Christian. End of story.
C.	Your heritage is that part of what came from those before you that you chose to embrace. If your forefathers were masons and you didnt want to be one, thats your deal. It is my heritage, I am a freemasonsame as every male in my family since well before we came to this blessed land. 


Your turn, if ya wana...
personally, this is a tired argument.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *
> Your turn, if ya wana...
> personally, this is a tired argument.
> 
> Your Brother
> John *



No I'm bored- what was your "good" point.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *Huh?  Read the whole thing, not just parts.  It's about evolution not government. *


 well what you have done is trivialized identity. This is important to a lot of people and you, like me, have so many different points of family origin that it is hard to identify with those with only one. However, just because you have latched on to just being an American and are content with that, does not mean that others should follow suit. Jews exist to this day only because of their sense of community and beliefs; no country, including the USA were looking out for them in WWII, or any other point in history. Now people are suggesting heretage is a vestage of the past now that Americans were forced to accept them in the 60s civil rights era. People are not evolving. We will do what we are taught to do and some will attempt to improve or make it better.
Sean


----------



## teej

Well Mr. Billings, I have to agree with Rainman on the time frame of the reference "American Kenpo". As you know, the Infinite Insite series were copyrighted in 1982 with the writting of material obviously taking place before this. In volume #1 in the Preface, page v, it states " It was written to expound upon the merits of "American Kenpo".... 5 paragraphs later it goes on to say, "Once understanding the principles upon which Kenpo is based, you will learn that "American Kenpo" is an art becase of its implementaion of scientific laws."

To me, again this is clearly defining a difference, or sub system if you will, between American Kenpo, and the art of Kenpo. (refer to the last sentence above how it distinguishes between Kenpo and American Kenpo.) And this was well before Mr. Parker passed away.

My instructor does happen to be a senior and Professor Chow's importance and contributions to Kenpo have been taught, atleast in the school I was brought up in. In fact, as I recall, the technique "Lone Kimono", I am taught, has it's origins from an incident that happened to Professor Chow in a bar in Hawaii. Again, myself and the students that have trained with me have been taught of Professor Chow's contributions and others.

You mentioned Danny Inosanto. Some of the readers may not know that Danny Inosanto was a 2nd degree Parker black belt BEFORE he went on to train with Bruce Lee. (Wasn't it in "Game of Death" that Danny did the Kenpo technique "Dance of Death??) And I assume we can attribute Ed Parker with their introduction. (I am assuming on this, does anyone out there know the actual story? How about it Doc?)

This forum concerning Professor Chow has referenced the fact that Mr. Parker trained with others besides Chow, that have  influenced "American Kenpo." Mr. Billings mentioned Wally Jay. I understand that Wally Jay and SGM Parker were good friends spending time together and that they frequently exchanged ideas. Some of the others that I have heard of that Mr. Parker worked out with are Ark Wong, Ming Lum, Jimmy Woo, and Danny Lee. So you see, others besides Professor Chow had influences on the origination of "American Kenpo".

For me, the importance of lineage is purley historical, especially now that Mr. Parker is gone. The history should not be forgotten and there is so very much out there that is not written down or being passed on, the history, the stories, etc. There are new black belts out there that cannot even explain what Kenpo is. What a shame to our system. But that is a topic for another discussion.

Years ago, the first time I met Gil Hibben, he told me that Kenpo was family. I have always remembered this and found it to be true, atleast where I have been exposed to it. And as in any family, there are unfortunately differences. Now I have never met Mr. Billings, but the way I was taught and the way I look at things, and the way I teach my students for ex., Mr. Billings and I share a brotherhood in Kenpo, and he would be treated with that respect should we ever meet, as with the meeting of any Kenpo black belt. And I treat all Black belts, regardless of style, with respect. It is just that with American Kenpo black belts, there is a family tie. This is my views and the way I teach. So any of you reading or responding are respected, the American Kenpo Black Belts have a family tie respect. (just my views and beliefs, if yours are different, start another forum on the subject)

I see this topic going in all directions. But I do feel strongly about the historical importance of lineage. The past shouldn't be forgotten. So I am going to start another forum under the heading of "Memories of Mr. Parker". Please veiw it and lets see where it goes.

Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## teej

Just to further the referencing of "American Kenpo"Karate. I realize that it is getting difficult to obtain copies of Ed Parker's "Infinite Insights into Kenpo" series. but if you go beyond the preface to Chapter two, it is titled "History of American Kenpo". Pages 7-42. 35 pages dedicated to History. Page 21, Mr. Parker gives James Mitose credit as having the desire that " Kenpo would one day become Americanized". (SGM was never a student of Mitose, and never trained with him, just a side note)

He further goes on to credit Professor Chow with "cultivating the seed of American Kenpo". So again, it still was not American Kenpo. He credits that teaching Chow's "master key movements" as educational stepping stones enabling himself to reach "higher" levels in Kenpo.

He talks of his "Intent to improve Kenpo to fit the needs" of the American student, and how he dedicated himself to purse all avenues to obtain these goals.  He credits experiences teaching the public and Law Enforcement of making him aware of what the needs were. You see the seeds were planted and he was working towards developing the system. Page 34 outlines the steps and process that he took to systematize the Parker system.

He goes on to refer to it as a modern version of Kenpo and on pg. 41, he refers to it as "American Kenpo".  Finally, the last page, P.42, is dedicated and titled "Ed Parker's Kenpo Family Tree of Black Belts of AMERICAN KENPO".

So I stand by my earlier conviction of the original thread question. Professor Chow is not on the family tree of American Kenpo. He is not an "American Kenpo" black belt.

Most assuredly, his contributions are evident. He had a tremendous impact on the development of several sub systems of Kenpo. And he has a "just"  a spot in the lineage of "Kenpo" Karate.

Yours in Kenpo, 
Teej


----------



## Michael Billings

I agree and you would be treated the same way at my school or in the AKTS.  

Up until 1990, when I last saw Mr. Parker, he referred to his art as 'Kenpo Karate", with a roll of the tongue on the "r" in Karate.  I never heard him call it Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, although we did, and I never heard him call it American Kenpo.   Now what I did hear, was the the art itself was uniquely American, but not labeled as American Kenpo.  Lest we forget and stray too far afield in this thread, Hawaii is part of "America" also.  Although the training by Mr. Parker by Mr. Chow may predate statehood, I am not certain, it certainly was American if you look at citizenship of the instructors.  

I like the distinction of when it became "Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate" as I see that as more relavent to it's "Americanization", whether I agree with Rainman or not.  The fact is it became what today we label "American Kenpo", and I do not know when, but the body of work that Infinite Insights presents, clearly shows that it had evolved by the time of their writing, in the 70's.  I suspect that enough had evolved away in the early to mid-60's to distinguish it as completely Mr. Parker's.  But I was not there, and rather have someone who was speak to it.  Maybe one of the "Advisors" to the Kenpo Forums?  

-Michael


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

We've done it again...Kenpoists once again firmly focused on the distant past...


----------



## teej

On no, I disagree with the Old Fat one. Not firmly focused on the distant past.

Just trying to preserve the history for the future practitioners.:asian: 

Teej


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

But, Kenpoists can't agree on what or who is in the history (now almost 50 years ago).  So why not just stop worrying about it and move on?


----------



## Michael Billings

That does not mean we do not show and hold the respect for those who came before, close and in our hearts.

OFK, your comment is demeaning, whether intended or not.  

The system of Kenpo is moving on ... just like you, after your own fashon, are seeking more knowledge, Kenpoist the world over are doing the same thing within the Art.  

Someone much more articulate than I said, "Those who do not study and understand the past, are doomed to repeat it" ... and you think it is all new.  Or as Doctor Timothy R. Mahoney observes, "People choose to study history formally, ..., because it connects one's life to those of other humans in the past and thus enhances and gives it meaning. History is a fundamental human endeavor that defines one's humanity."  In the context of Kenpo, it gives us perspective and a sense of community, move away at your own peril, the risk of being disconnected with your community.

-Michael

_(edited for spelling)_


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Sorry, didn't mean to demean (or to be mean to) anyone.  Just seeing a lot of keyboard pounding on a debate that is essentially semantics.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, here's my cent-and-a-half.

First off, the question's pretty simple on one level: William Chow was Edward Parker's primary (it means, "first") teacher, so William Chow is patently a very significant figure in the history of American kenpo. So's James Mitose, though his place in that history is a LOT harder to see clearly( could be worse--could be Choki Motubu), and we may never get it straightened out. So're Ark Y. Wong, and several other people, the most-significant of whom appears to be Jimmy Wing Woo.

They're there, they're pretty clearly important, they pretty clearly left their marks aall over present-day kenpo. Q.E.D., y'all. What's the big deal?

The problem appears to me to be this: the notion of "lineage," is too limited and too Oedipalized, which is why these spats springeth up. Personally, I think of Freud in, "Totem and Taboo," or Bloom's, "Anxiety of Influence," but that's just me.

It's also good to remember that most of that stuff about Shaolin is the product of nineteenth-century Chinese novels.

Better ideas about historical, "descent," are available. We'd be better off with Edw. Said's ideas about, "filiations," or the kind of weird, "genealogy," Foucault talks about in, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."

We don't have to answer everything in terms of who's whose daddy, if you get my drift...


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Well, here's my cent-and-a-half.
> 
> First off, the question's pretty simple on one level: William Chow was Edward Parker's primary (it means, "first") teacher, so William Chow is patently a very significant figure in the history of American kenpo. So's James Mitose, though his place in that history is a LOT harder to see clearly( could be worse--could be Choki Motubu), and we may never get it straightened out. So're Ark Y. Wong, and several other people, the most-significant of whom appears to be Jimmy Wing Woo.*


That's a very good cent-and-a-half! It's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

Rainman:
What I thought my "Good point" was, was that Mr. Chow taught Mr. Parker about 'master-key' techniques. Without a good foundation in fundamental techniques, this lesson wouldn't have been possible. Therefore my point is that according to what you yourself said I was right and Mr. Chow did teach Mr. Parker some foundational Kenpo knowledge. 
that's all.
It's not worth this much argument really. I apologize for getting overly snide with you Chad, but I got very upset by your comment regarding my family (who wouldn't) and your general tone overall. All I've said is that Mr. Parker studied with Mr. Chow. That's all. I thought it was a generally accepted fact. I stand corrected.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rainman

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *That's a very good cent-and-a-half! It's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.
> 
> Rainman:
> What I thought my "Good point" was, was that Mr. Chow taught Mr. Parker about 'master-key' techniques. Without a good foundation in fundamental techniques, this lesson wouldn't have been possible. Therefore my point is that according to what you yourself said I was right and Mr. Chow did teach Mr. Parker some foundational Kenpo knowledge.
> that's all.
> It's not worth this much argument really. I apologize for getting overly snide with you Chad, but I got very upset by your comment regarding my family (who wouldn't) and your general tone overall. All I've said is that Mr. Parker studied with Mr. Chow. That's all. I thought it was a generally accepted fact. I stand corrected.
> 
> Your Brother
> John *



No worries.

1.  I put things in number form for my own benefit, nothing else.

2.  Some concepts do not create a foundation, they create a start.  The difference here being the how and why- although some of the techniques share common movements.   

3.  Never said Mr. Chow wasn't a part of Kenpo history... Just not American Kenpo.    The concepts, thoeries and principles make us different.

4.  You don't know me so you don't know what my tone is.  You can't really give me your interpretation of me without knowing me.  

This is it for me on this topic, I have my beleifs and fyi I do not teach my beliefs to students I try to give them information and let them come to their own conclusions.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Hey, what's a "lineage?"

There is no such thing as an absolute origin--unless you want to get metaphysical.


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> *No worries.
> 
> 1.  I put things in number form for my own benefit, nothing else.
> 
> 2.  Some concepts do not create a foundation, they create a start.  The difference here being the how and why- although some of the techniques share common movements.
> 
> 3.  Never said Mr. Chow wasn't a part of Kenpo history... Just not American Kenpo.    The concepts, thoeries and principles make us different.
> 
> 4.  You don't know me so you don't know what my tone is.  You can't really give me your interpretation of me without knowing me.
> 
> This is it for me on this topic, I have my beleifs and fyi I do not teach my beliefs to students I try to give them information and let them come to their own conclusions. *



#1: Ok. But it was still useful for me.
#2: Start, beggining, foundation....whatever. I think we are just using different words and arguing about the choice of words instead of meaning.
#3: The concepts, theories and principles do certainly make us quite different, but I still think that American Kenpo grew from the seedlings Mr. Chow planted in a Very Fertile mind (Mr. Parker). So we really don't have an argument here I don't think.
#4: I don't know you, but your tone carried through by your choice of words and subject matter. I didn't judge you, I judged your words... I can do that, I did. Just because we couldn't point each other out in a line-up or identify each other's voice doesn't mean that our interactions here carry no meaning or connotations. I personally think that you were very rude, so I said so. You insintuated that I'm a cult member and made a big deal about my family; rude. You weren't pyschoanalyzed... I just called it like I saw it. So did you.
I still don't understand why you and I always seem to butt heads on things, even trivial things. Oh well. I'll try to be nice if you will.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Hey, what's a "lineage?"
> There is no such thing as an absolute origin--unless you want to get metaphysical. *


I have no doubt you could easily wax-philosophic on us enough to make our heads spin...  
Please don't bust a metaphysical exam on us. 
 
But you are correct, there is no 'absolute origin'...
except to us Christians, then there's God; but that's a whole different ball O' wax huh?
Think people argue about Kenpo?
Try going to a forum where Christians and atheists/agnostics debate....
now there's a mud-bath.

Your Brother (Able flunked 'checking the storm' against Cain)
John


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _*
> Well, here's my cent-and-a-half......
> 
> William Chow was Edward Parker's primary (it means, "first") teacher, so ......
> *



Well, only a half cent, Robert......
You need to brush up on your history....

First off Mr. Parker hated, HATED  the name "Edward", it was Ed"MUND" not Edward.

Second, William Chow was NOT his first instructor.... he had studied with Chow's brother first, which then introduced him to William Chow.   

William Chow WAS his "main influence" however.

:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Well, only a half cent, Robert......
> You need to brush up on your history....
> 
> First off Mr. Parker hated, HATED  the name "Edward", it was Ed"MUND" not Edward.
> 
> Second, William Chow was NOT his first instructor.... he had studied with Chow's brother first, which then introduced him to William Chow.
> 
> William Chow WAS his "main influence" however.
> 
> :asian: *



Thanks for the quotes. Parker never studied with Kwai Sun after he left the islands and the military late in 53'. He spent significantly more time with Chinese masters like Ark Yuey Wong, Lao bun, "Tiny" lefiti, and to a lesser extent Jimmy Woo whom he silently collaborated with on "Secrets Of Chinese Karate." Chow was indeed his significant instructor in the islands, but not on the mainland nor as he evolved, in his life. The primary physical influences were Ark Wong, and "Tiny" Lefiti. Anyone who ever saw "Tiny" move would swear it was the Ed Parker of the late sixties whom he was emulating, when it was the other way around. Ed Parker's Kenpo had a significant influnece from "Splashing Hands" gong fu and "Five Animal." Interestingly enough, Parker studied there (Wah Que Studio) then later on Inosanto before coming to Parker, and then myself along side Douglas Wong back in the dark ages. But in reality Parker, one way or another, studied everyone that had something real to offer until the day he passed. To list all of the influences would be virtually everybody he came incontact with. Some a little, some a lot. Some positive some negative. Sometimes he learned what not to do, and even found value in Conatsers first instructor Bruce Tegner. rofl: (After all I think everyone owned a Tegner book at one time.)

What Parker gave Chow credit for was the pragmatic approach of self defense focus over abstract questionable forms and unrealistic methodologies that prevailed at the time. Outside of China and probably Pakistan, empty hand martial arts were primitive and evolving, and no approach looked anything like what is available today.

None of the previous island "basics" survived the transitions of evolution, and Parker never looked back for information. Although he said otherwise in public out of respect for his then living teacher, he confided he used probably about 2% of what he got from Chow. But he also stated Chow was absolutely responsible for planting the seed for his approach, but the methodology and subsequent knowledge acquired was beyond the primitive rundimentary and heavily Japanese influenced arts practiced at the time in the islands.

A quick look at Parker's first book on "Kenpo" (1961) reveals very little of the flowing circular Chinese influence he would acquire later. Instead, although revolutionary at the time for its multiple strikes, it was mostly linear movement and "chambered" hands while everyone else thought a "technique" was 2 or 3 strikes max while performing in a bright white uniform with the pants mid-calf Japanese "flood style." But you could see Parker was evolving even then because he spoke of "nerves strikes" and their repercussions while the "traditionalists" in the islands, much like most western practitioners, relied on single blunt force trauma middle knuckle strikes to the temple and sternum for a "one punch kill" White Dot Focus philosophy:


----------



## Michael Billings

... good to hear from you again with your history of having been there at the time.

I appreciate it.
-Michael


----------



## rmcrobertson

Thanks for the correction; "Edmund," is of course right, as I suspect is the other. May I suggest that you just tell me I'm wrong, next time (and there will be a next time, as there will for us all), however.

Why, do you think, is it that folks want to essentially wipe William Chow out of American kenpo history? I think that reasons include,  a) he was by several accounts not the nicest nor the most-legal guy on the planet, and we'd all like to think our thing is squeaky-clean (could be worse, could be aikido) and b) if Mr. Parker becomes the absolute origin of kenpo, then whoever is thought to be the most like him becomes a repetition of the absolute origin of kenpo.

Thanks, again.


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _*
> Why, do you think, is it that folks want to essentially wipe William Chow out of American kenpo history?
> *



Well, I can't speak for others, but I or my group do recognize Chow for who he was and what he contributed to Ed Parker's beginnings.  Like Mr. Chape'l said, he was his main "Island" influence, and Mr. Parker himself gave Chow that position.  Who am I to change that.

I also agree with Mr. Chape'l's assessment of history as stated in his above post.

Those that want Chow left  out of our lineage ..... IMHO, just don't know - what they don't know.

And that's the bottom line because the GoldenDragon says so.....
:rofl:


----------



## MisterMike

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Why, do you think, is it that folks want to essentially wipe William Chow out of American kenpo history? I think that reasons include,  a) he was by several accounts not the nicest nor the most-legal guy on the planet, and we'd all like to think our thing is squeaky-clean (could be worse, could be aikido)  *



What was not so nice and legal about the founder of Aikido?

And why would it tarnish the image of the art? Are martial arts supposed to come from saints? Sometimes it takes a little real combative experience to back your fighting style.


----------



## teej

Where do you get this stuff. I do not remember anyone trying to "Wipe Professor Chow" out of our history. He has highly been acknowledged throughout this thread. Different groups are placing him in different parts of their lineage. That is their choice.
And I think this thread has started to go in all kinds of directions
and probably is at its end. Noone will ever agree on everything. But if you read all the responses to this, Professor Chow and his contribution to Kenpo is asknowledged.

Mr. Roberts, you have not listed any form of Kenpo in your profile. That is your choice and I respect that, however; you further go on to refer to SGM Parker as "Edward"? Are you a Kenpo student?
If not,(it doesn't seem like it), you really have no place fanning the flames. Kind of like a neighbor or friend butting into family business.

If I am wrong and you have a back ground in Kenpo, you have my deepest apologies for my above statement. Only Kenpo practioners will understand Kenpo lineage. They won't all agree, but will understand.

Teej


----------



## Michael Billings

Sometimes, Robert, who is a Black Belt under Larry Tatum, comes across as somewhat condesending, probably not on purpose (except when it is), but your statement teej:



> Mr. Roberts, you have not listed any form of Kenpo in your profile.  That is your choice and I respect that, however; you further go on to refer to SGM Parker as "Edward"? Are you a Kenpo student?
> 
> If not,(it doesn't seem like it), you really have no place fanning the flames. Kind of like a neighbor or friend butting into family business.



I strongly disagree with the analogy of a neighbor butting in.  This is an open forum, and many comments have come from non-kenpoist, that help us see ourselves, (and how seriously we take ourselves), with a little humor.  Robert is part of the Kenpo "family" (albeit somewhat dysfunctional at times, but what family isn't?), and his opinions and statements carry as much weight, insight, sometimes humor, sometimes abrasivness ... as any of the rest of us.  It seems like a personal attack, in a "gentle" kind of "with all due respect" way?  Was that your intent?

Let's Chow down instead of snipe at each other.

-Michael


----------



## teej

I stand completely corrected and again apologize publicly to Mr. Roberts. As he is a brother in Kenpo, this would be family bickering instead of a neighbor.

I have not seen his posts enough to understand him. Of course sometimes it is hard to detect emotions and intent from reading words.

Again, I am sorry if I offended you personally, in fact, I think I am done with this lineage topic for now. It  seems to have its wheels spinning.

I do credit and thank all participants as this has caused me to do a lot of research, and touch base with some old and new friends.

Your brother in Kenpo
Teej


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Michael Billings _
> *... good to hear from you again with your history of having been there at the time.
> 
> I appreciate it.
> -Michael *



One day we have got to get together so I can hear some of your stories as well. I'm sure you have plenty.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Gee, you miss so much when you spend the afternoon teaching and training.

Um...first off, please re-read the posts. Several people, teej included, argued that Mr. Chow did not belong in the, "lineage," of American kenpo. To me, that's about like saying that Africa doesn't belong is the lineage of contemporary human beings, whose ancestors all evolved in Africa.

And Michael, sorry, but could we please leave what you or others fantasize to be my personality out of it?  I avoid commenting upon the personalites of people I've never met in these forums, and I would really rather appreciate the same courtesy. Argue with the damn ideas; given the silly stuff I write, nobody will have to wait long to find arguable things.

The meat of what I argued was this: a) this fascination with "lineage," is oedipal, in Freud's and Harold Bloom's terms; b) attempts to airbrush certain people out of our evolutionary history reflect our present-day fantasies and our present-day politics; c) kenpo history would better be described as something else--another good term, "rhizome," comes from Deleuze and Guattari.

On another note, teej, I didn't list my training and all because a) it ain't all that big a deal, and b) I didn't see what it had to do with anything, and c) well frankly, it's personal. 

You might check other threads--very often I get described (which just strikes me as really, really weird) as a hide-bound kenpo traditionalist, whatever the heck that means.

Oh, the aikido thing? read John Stephens' bio of Mr. Ueshiba, "Abundant Peace"--apparently the avatar of peaceful resolution was a considerable hellraiser in his youth, and if Stephens is to be trusted, made his fundamental breakthroughs while he was (with a small group of Japanese fascists) invading China, around 1928. Stephens also emphasizes, and it makes sense, that the logic of sword and spear are fundamental to aikido's theory and practice.


----------



## MisterMike

> Oh, the aikido thing? read John Stephens' bio of Mr. Ueshiba, "Abundant Peace"--apparently the avatar of peaceful resolution was a considerable hellraiser in his youth, and if Stephens is to be trusted, made his fundamental breakthroughs while he was (with a small group of Japanese fascists) invading China, around 1928. Stephens also emphasizes, and it makes sense, that the logic of sword and spear are fundamental to aikido's theory and practice.



Fascists? Where do you come off? I believe Ueshiba went through China, not to invade it, but to eventually get to Mongolia where he wanted to establish a new nation based on spirituality and peace. He was captured in China and nearly killed, and his return to Japan had to be negotiated.

As for swords and spears, well, when Japan essentially outlawed them, that's where empty hand arts that were based on them came to be. Maybe Kenpoists should refrain from the "handsword"?

I still see nothing illegal and "not so nice." I also think Stevens wrote too many books.

Anyways...I'll let this get back to topic of "Kenpo Lineage"


----------



## rmcrobertson

Sorry, no. The peace came later. According to Stephens, who studied personally with the man he referred to as, "O-Sensei," "Japanese fascist," is pretty much the correct term. Even if it were not, how would you like it if he'd come to the US with plans to set up an independant republic devoted to peace and freedom in, say, Oregon? Mongolia was not his country; he had no business truckin' off there to set up a darn thing.

Apparently the--let's say, "national"--interests that drew Mr. Ueshibaa to China did not stop in 1928. I would refer you to Peter Goldberg's, "Aikido and Nationalism," in "Aikido Journal," Vol. 26, no. 3 (1999), 36-38, which notes that, "The gestation period of aikido...lasted for about thirty years, and during the development of his martial art, Morehei Ueshiba was strongly supported by the Japanese Imperial Navy and especially by a very high ranking officer, Admiral Isamu Takeshita." This in the period immediately preceding World War II, I might add; Goldberg goes on to note, tactfully, that Ueshiba was, "highly unlikely," not to have been tangled up in Japanese nationalism, given his background and associates. 

It is also worth noting that apparently the Omoto religion of which Mr. Ueshiba was a devotee, if I recall correctly, ended up having some ties with that weird group that nerve-gassed a couple of Tokyo subways a few years back...

And of course, I still think Donn Draeger's explanations of the ways that Buddhism and martial arts contributed to Japanese fascism is dead on...

I'm afraid you are letting your dislike for what you conceive to be MY politics distort your reason, in this case. Among other things, if you'll re-read what I wrote, I was pointing out that far from aikido's being some purely-touchy-feely-peace-love-and-vegetarian-cooking-sweetnessfest, its history and its core theories rested on weapon arts. I'd have thought, given your statements elsewhere about gun control, that you'd find that a congenial argument.

I'm being long-winded about this (well, beyond the fact that it seems I AM long-winded) because the air-brushing of history is very much the issue, as I see it, in the question of whether Mr. Chow belongs in the, "lineage," of American kenpo. Similarly the attempts that we often read to remove Mr. Mitose from that line of descent--or at least to make excuses for his getting flung in the can for conspiracy to commit murder--help sanitize the past. And in doing that, they blind us to what's going on more recently--like Mr. Parker's awarding that murdering bastard Pinochet a black belt (less than ten years after the military coup and the torture-murders of thousands in Chile!), or the way that martial arts always attract a certain number of right-wing survivalist nutballs.

All martial arts have some roots in ugliness, as far as I know. Look at the way tae kwon do and tang soo do started out as explicitly national--and to some extent racist--arts. Look at the way some hapkido practitioners play up the supposed Imperial origins of that art. And look at the ways that some of what apparently gave Mr. Parker a chunk of his originally-ripe reputation in the martial arts community (something that it seems to me is still with us, by the way) had to do with his democratization of arts that used to be held in quasi-secret, often within families and crime organizations, and always among men only...

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## MisterMike

To quote:



> invading China



..an action he never partook, nor any type under the authority of the Japanese military.

Also, with quotes referring to his abilities to make people fall down without touching them, I'd question the validity or context to which he had ties to these senior Admirals. 

He studied Budo, as did most every practitioner in Japan at the time, but it later became his vehicle to peace.

Japan's samurai era is what we have to thank for a lot of our arts' origins. I see you're not proud of it, but I don't see a reason for the harshness.


----------



## Brian Jones

I think a lot of it comes from the way the pollis worded.  It doesn't say should William chow be listed in Ed Parker's (martial Art ) lineage.  It says should Chow be    lsited in American Kenpo's lineage.  To me that is a little different.  American Kenpo is Ed Parker's art.  As I said before did he learn from Chow and other's?  Absolutley.  But did he learn Americna Kenpo from them? not exaclty.  
   Sure it's a picky point and probably not one worth even arguing.  Although I voted no, that's probably me reading too much into the original question. We should recognize those who came before us (lineage or history or those who trained beside us), but we are better served looking toward the future and how we can contribute to the art.


----------



## Doc

Although I lean heavily toward rmrobertson's point of view, (and he is indeed on point of some rather indepth aspects of his post), I think the argument hinges on significant sematical and cultural interpretations of the question(s) implied by the wording of the poll itself.

Perhaps an interesting discussion could begin regarding the distinctions, culturally and otherwise, between a "heritage,"  a "lineage," and  the "origin" of a martial art.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Well, the old saw is that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. And then too, "the past," is what this thread's about.

Michael, again, I don't know what else to call it but, "invasion," when you leave your country and move to another with the express purpose of getting rid of their present government and establishing one you like.

Again, I'd suggest reading your own post:

"I believe Ueshiba went through China, not to invade it, but to eventually get to Mongolia where he wanted to establish a new nation based on spirituality and peace. He was captured in China and nearly killed, and his return to Japan had to be negotiated."

What was there to "negotiate," if not the question of his being in the country? Why'd he get captured and nearly killed, if he wasn't up to anything? Who exactly asked him, "Hey pal, come on over and set up a new nation in our country?"

You don't find it in any way--oddish--that precisely at the time the Japanese were making more and more open moves against China, all of a sudden here's Morehei Ueshiba, wading in from Japan, "to establish a new nation," in part of soverign China?

So you're telling us that both Stephens and Goldberg have no idea what they're talking about? Odd. Again, the former was a personal student, if memory serves; the latter presently teaches at Hiroshima University and has been in aikido somewhere around thirty years. 

I'd be very interested to know exactly what facts, authorities or personal conversations you're using here. I keep writing, "Well, if you look at this book," and I give quotes; I keep noting events, associations, etc., and naming names...you just keep saying, "No, that's ridiculous." OK, if it is and you can show why the authors I've cited are wrong, or the events didn't happen, great. I'd be interested in learning more--but what the heck are you basing your claims on?

I'd also suggest taking a look, for background, at Donn F. Draeger, "Modern Bujutsu and Budo," vol. 3 of, "The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan," (New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1996), with particular reference to the discussion titled, "The Showa Era," pages 41-52 in chapter 2, "The Road to War and Its Aftermath." I'm wrong about all sorts of things, of course, but if you want to take on Draeger's facts and argument, you best bring your lunch.

"Showa," means, "radiant peace," apparently. It is the name for the era of the rise of Japanese militarism and nationalism, during which rightists moved the country into Manchuria, organized military assassinations of political leaders at home who supported democratic reform, wrote documents such as the 1930 one Draeger cites from the Black Dragon society, "We shall carry out the spirit of the Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors and stimulate a martial spirit by working toward the goal of a nation in arms," and ended up as part of the Axis along with Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy in WWII.  What the hell is THAT, if not fascism?

As for the claim that I am somehow ashamed of the history of martial arts--nooo, I simply have this thing about understanding actual facts and historical realities. Seems to me that one might be all the prouder of what the arts have come to mean to so many, given their background. Knowing that Custer was a murdering SOB and an irresponsible leader who finally got what he'd deserved for quite some time does not make less proud of my country--it makes me glad I live somewhere we don't lie about our past nearly so much.

I'm afraid that I don't understand why you're arguing this, either. Could you explain a bit more, so I'll understand?

Thanks for the conversation.


----------



## MisterMike

The whole reason this came up is I'm just a little puzzled as to how you've come to the conclusion that Ueshiba was a militant fascist who tried to invade China and then miraculously turned himself around and fought for world peace. Invasion involves agression, which Ueshiba had no intent on. From what I've read, he wasn't armed.

I'm also familiar with Dreager's works as he is in my martial art lineage. But some of the things you reference have nothing to do with Ueshiba's intent. Might be where he came from, and granted we all go through some formative stages in life, but the 180 degrees that you imply he would make most people's heads spin.

It just doesn't add up to call him a fascist, and you're about the first person to call Ueshiba those terms in spite of 1.5 million Aikido practitioners who just haven't quite picked up on your profound insight. I know the same names and the same books, and I can't bring myself to the same conclusion about him.

By the way, it doesn't take a lot to get arrested and jailed/killed in China today, nevermind in the 1920's. Just open a Bible. Oh yeah, doesn't Kenpo have some roots there? I also presume he wasn't going to take over a country with ~12 men. Must be some hidden Parker technique I haven't seen yet. More like he was interested in going to a place where his ideas might be accepted and possibly adopted? It's like saying our Italian immigrants have no place in politics. I just don't buy he was setting up base camp so the Japanese Imperial Army could come "wading" in.

The fact you compare the squeaky-cleanness of Parker Kenpo history to that of Aikido as not on par seems to show you've only researched one of them or are a tad biased. Of course, we all know how most of the Kenpo folk are humble. Especially in the Tatum line.

Fact is, a majority of our arts eventually go back to the same place. When you choose to trace back Aikido until you hit the Showa period while stopping at Chow for Kenpo really speaks volumes.

So you want to cut this short? Why don't you come to a conclusion on what Aikido came from. Or is Japan "lieing about its past?" Was Aikido born out of fascism, or was it Ueshiba's vision for teaching peace and harmony to the world? You make a statement about someone and then have to ask why are we discussing this?


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh, for crying out loud. The man went off to China to found some new state with members of a right-wing, quasi-secret society at a time when right-wing, quasi-secret societies were taking over Japan; there is example after example of his being advanced in his career from 1928 on by high-ranking Japanese military officers. 

You've offered no evidence, no references, no cited facts of any kind, despite repeated simple requests. You've simply chosen to keep claiming that I must not know what I'm talking about, or am only using one source, despite my having mentioned, "Aikido Journal," Stevens' bio, and one of Draeger's books. Are you even familiar with Draeger's discussion of the intimate ties connecting martial arts, and Buddhism, to Japanese militarism? 

Instead, you've chosen to make really peculiar claims about what I've written. How in the hell you could read what I wrote as asserting the, "squeaky-cleanness of Parker Kenpo history," is way past me. Did you simply miss my comments about James Mitose? about William Chow's vital place in the "lineage," of American kenpo? about the moral quality of awarding a murdering general who directed a coup against a democratically-elected government a black belt? 

I shall try to pass over your comments about, "the Tatum line," more or less in silence. I will note that Mr. Tatum does not deserve your discourtesy even in the event that everything I wrote was just plain silly--and I'm still waiting for you to offer a few facts and references to go with your gratuitous insults. But whether or not you recognize it, you owe an apology. 

Apparently I have also somehow become responsible for the oppression of Christians in China. Why I would need to tell you this I can but barely imagine, but gee, I'm kinda opposed to religious persecution. I guess it's just that I also object when, say, Christians in Bosnia start ethnically cleansing Muslims. However, I hardly think that you caused that atrocity.

While we're on the subject of Christianity and in answer to your question, well, yes, I had thought--silly me!--that the hope of religion was the hope of profound change. Or did I get the point of that New Testament story of Saul on the road to Tarsus wrong somehow? Did I screw up John Bunyan's point in his great work, "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners?" The abrupt conversion of the wicked is perhaps the oldest trope in Christianity.

It is also one of the central hopes that martial arts holds out--the hope of change--or have I got that one wrong too? Had I been less distracted by your pointless invective, I might have pointed out earlier that for Stevens, Mr. Ueshiba took his experience in China as precisely the 180-degree revolution, the conversion experience, that you deride. 

Incidentally, I said nothing about Ueshiba's being in collusion with the Japanese Army in China. I said that he was part of a nut-cult's attempt to go take over Mongolia (!); if it helps you balance on the left, this is perfectly comparable to, say, Samuel Taylor Coleridge's attempt to get a buncha girls to run off to American with him, and found a utopian commune on the banks of the Susquehanna river. 

Oh yes. Yes, it's my understanding that some parts of Japanese culture still lie like hell about Japan's history. You might find it instructive to check up on some of the many articles I've seen on the weird representations of WWII in some history classes, or perhaps the little foofaraw of a couple of years ago, when the Japanese trade minister gave a big speech and announced that all the Korean women forced to work as whores by the Army really had things pretty good--why, we helped those women!--and anyway, who knows why anybody would make a big fuss about 50,000 or so women forced into sexual slavery...and no, they are very far from being unique.

Now I dunno what exactly provoked, Michael, but I will not be responding again until you recover some manners.


----------



## Michael Billings

Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Michael Billings
-MT Moderator-


----------



## pete

i think i'll be heading over to the aikido forum, just for kicks...


----------



## MisterMike

Fine. Thanks for the ummm...diatribe. We're all better because of it now.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Now that a bit of the dust has dropped, let me simply note that my point was this: all the martial arts, kenpo most certainly included, have some uglies in their history. I think it is pertinent to note this--which, in reference to aikido, I originally did merely in an aside--in the context of Mr. Chow's place in American kenpo's history, because I think it is important that we do not airbrush out the parts of the "lineage," of which we do not approve.

This is from George Leonard's spiritsite website, and his bio of Mr. Ueshiba:

"Never daunted in his quest, Morihei Ueshiba then gave himself heart and soul to another charismatic but questionable character, Onisaburo Deguchi, founder and guru of Ornoto-Kyo, a cultlike religion that at one time had several million followers in Japan. In 1924, Onisaburo, Morihei, and a few other Omoto-Kyo followers left Japan bound on a secret expedition to the Chinese mainland. Their plan was to raise an army, foment a revolution, and take over Mongolia for Japan. After several battles, Onisaburols group was captured, put in irons, and threatened with execution. The Chinese authorities, unwilling to provoke the Japanese, government, finally issued a reprieve and the conspirators were released into the custody of the local Japanese consul."

I'm not sure what source material he's using. It may be that he's gone back to Stevens' biography. It does seem clear that a) Leonard can't spell much, b) I had the dates slightly wrong; 1924, not 1927. This might have some relation to the question of the rise of Japanese militarism.

I am going to continue to poke around on the Net; in the event I've got it hopelessly wrong and none of this material can be trusted, I will of course post to that effect.

As for Mr. Chow, perhaps it might be useful to shift towards a discussion of a) precisely what he left in American kenpo; b) precisely what leads people to absolutely separate him out.

Thank you.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Now that a bit of the dust has dropped, let me simply note that my point was this: all the martial arts, kenpo most certainly included, have some uglies in their history. I think it is pertinent to note this--which, in reference to aikido, I originally did merely in an aside--in the context of Mr. Chow's place in American kenpo's history, because I think it is important that we do not airbrush out the parts of the "lineage," of which we do not approve.
> 
> This is from George Leonard's spiritsite website, and his bio of Mr. Ueshiba:
> 
> "Never daunted in his quest, Morihei Ueshiba then gave himself heart and soul to another charismatic but questionable character, Onisaburo Deguchi, founder and guru of Ornoto-Kyo, a cultlike religion that at one time had several million followers in Japan. In 1924, Onisaburo, Morihei, and a few other Omoto-Kyo followers left Japan bound on a secret expedition to the Chinese mainland. Their plan was to raise an army, foment a revolution, and take over Mongolia for Japan. After several battles, Onisaburols group was captured, put in irons, and threatened with execution. The Chinese authorities, unwilling to provoke the Japanese, government, finally issued a reprieve and the conspirators were released into the custody of the local Japanese consul."
> 
> I'm not sure what source material he's using. It may be that he's gone back to Stevens' biography. It does seem clear that a) Leonard can't spell much, b) I had the dates slightly wrong; 1924, not 1927. This might have some relation to the question of the rise of Japanese militarism.
> 
> I am going to continue to poke around on the Net; in the event I've got it hopelessly wrong and none of this material can be trusted, I will of course post to that effect.
> 
> As for Mr. Chow, perhaps it might be useful to shift towards a discussion of a) precisely what he left in American kenpo; b) precisely what leads people to absolutely separate him out.
> 
> Thank you. *


Robert,
You have to understand that it was not hard for The japanese to see the folly in allowing themselves to be completely industrialized and losing the old ways. They were proven right witht the Smoot/Hawley Tarrif. Once the depression hit a nation completly dependant on trade with the west was left to starve. My point is that of course little cults are going to pop up to try to either stave off the evil and /or conquer others. The time was right and the japanese government was likely high on the newly invented(by the japanese) crystal meth. But they had public sentiment and not a whole lotta choices so why shouldn't they join the axis powers? Unfortunantly they were a spartan society that bit off more than it could chew.
Sean


----------



## Michael Billings

Let's try this again -

Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Michael Billings
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Seig

I feel the Professor Chow does not belong in the American Kenpo lineage, period.  Before you start foaming at the mouth, let me explain.  If Professor Chow is in the *American Kenpo* lineage above SGM Parker, then how can SGM Parker be credited as our founder?


----------



## CoolKempoDude

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> * If Professor Chow is in the American Kenpo lineage above SGM Parker, then how can SGM Parker be credited as our founder? *



the reason why Chow is in AK lineage because he was EP's teacher. That is the bottom line.

i don't know how many MA teachers EP had but if his teachers want to be acknowledged in AK lineage. I don't see anything wrong with it.

it is good to know i learn from this person and then i invent this or that.


----------



## teej

Heritage--     something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor.

Lineage--   a group  of individuals tracing descent from a common ancestor; especially: a group of persons whose common ancestor is REGARDED AS ITS FOUNDER.

Origin --  rise, beginning, or derivation from a source.


Can someone define in words the difference between "Kenpo" and "American Kenpo"? My definitions in my mind, seperate the two. My understanding is that the Kenpo William Chow taught Ed Parker, and the American Kenpo we have learned from Ed Parkers' American Kenpo are distinctly different.

I believe the original post asked (does anyone remember the original poat at this point?) if William Chow had a place in AK (American Kenpo) History or Lineage?

With that, Professor Chow definitely has a respected place in American Kenpo heritage/history.

 The Lineage of descent of American Kenpo starts with Edmund Parker, the founder. The "origin" of American Kenpo is from Ed Parker. SGM Parker in the founder. Therefore, as I tried to explain before and I concur with Seig, Professor Chow is not in the American Kenpo "lineage". He is in the "heritage" and or "history" 
of AK. In fact, he is in the "heritage/history" of all sub-systems of Kenpo, but not their Lineage. (the lineage trace starts with each sub systems founder)

Yours in Kenpo,
Teej


----------



## ob2c

> I just want to know if Prof Chow should be consider in AK's history or lineage.



Of course he is. A lineage is eveery one in your line. But lineage isn't the whole story. This concept was easier to apply when the arts were close held in villages, families or other small groups. But as we now have so much cross over between systems and styles it is a little harder to simply define a lineage.

I'd suggest looking at this more from the perspective of a tree. Mr Parker is the trunk, due to the magnitude and unique nature of what he did. The limbs and branches are those people and systems that sprang from his efforts. The roots are all those who contributed in some way to Mr. Parkers training and knowlege base. Some branches or roots might die, others might be cut off. But the tree livesand grows, while its roots spread back through history.


----------



## Brian Jones

Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage?  With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma?  How far back do we go? 


Brian Jones


----------



## CoolKempoDude

> _Originally posted by Brian Jones _
> *Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage?  With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma?  How far back do we go?
> 
> 
> Brian Jones *



go as far as it should


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Brian Jones _
> *Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage?  With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma?  How far back do we go?
> 
> 
> Brian Jones *


Why does it matter?
Go back as far as you like, all the way to Bodhidharma or further...or don't let them know who your instructor's instructor was. Your choice, your class.

Tell your students all about whomever you like, or don't.
I hope I'm not sounding upset or whatnot...I'm not. I just don't see this argument as being very important to me or my school.

I personally find the history aspects interesting, maybe even enlightening... but it's not really that crucial an aspect of Kenpo...I don't think.
Never had anyone ask me to help them learn history, just karate.

IF asked about the history, I'll tell them about as much as I can... Parker, Chow, Motobu....Bodhidharma....or even those w/no logical connection to specifically Kenpo/Kempo...if there's a good lesson to be learned in it.

As for the Aikido stuff...
1. It's not my art, I don't know...don't care. The art of Aikido is cool and I'm sure quite good to learn. Everyone has skeletons if you dig deep enough and through enough closets. All we should care about concerning skelletons in closets is to NOT become one of them and add to the rotten bone-heap....to not be an embarasement to those who come after us.
2. Lots of opinions, some curious facts...probably never know the WHOLE truth about it, even the most well mannered discussion about it doesn't help anyone, Aikidoka or not.
3. It's not Kenpo, probably doesn't belong here in such a tightly controlled EPAK-only forum.  
Your Brother
John


----------



## dcence

Heck, I think you should trace the lineage back to Cain, who popped Abel in the field; he probably used marriage of gravity when he brought the rock down on poor Abel's head.

Chow is in EPAK's lineage.  If EPAK contains material Chow showed Mr. Parker, and that is enough to establish the tie as a predecessor in lineage.  

Just because I started my own family doesn't make Dwayne Ence any less my father, or my kids his grandchildren.

It doesn't diminish Mr. Parker's accomplishment in my eyes one iota to know that American Kenpo is not 100% his creation, any more than it does a scientist that uses Einstein's theory of relativity to come up with some great discovery.

Ask yourself this, if Mr. Parker had not studied with Chow, would EPAK be what it is?  If yes, you could wipe Chow completely out of the lineage as if he never existed.  But the answer is no.

Derek Ence


----------



## Brian Jones

I agree that while expressing how unique EPAK is we don't want to give the impression that Ed Parker came up with it on his own.  Just as (in my opinion) the  AKKI is unique yet Mr. Mills gives proper respect to Mr. Parker.
  And no it really doesn't matter how far we go back, I was just curious where most people drew the line. So let me ask another question.  Where then do we put people like Ark Wong,  Jimmy Woo, Luan Bao (sp?)?  Where would we put them in the lineage?    


Brian Jones


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Brian Jones _
> *I agree that while expressing how unique EPAK is we don't want to give the impression that Ed Parker came up with it on his own.  Just as (in my opinion) the  AKKI is unique yet Mr. Mills gives proper respect to Mr. Parker.
> And no it really doesn't matter how far we go back, I was just curious where most people drew the line. So let me ask another question.  Where then do we put people like Ark Wong,  Jimmy Woo, Luan Bao (sp?)?  Where would we put them in the lineage?
> 
> 
> Brian Jones *



Well actually he did. Although there are ideas and concepts that are inherent to all martial arts, the only true differences are in each arts goal, and how you choose to reach those goals. At the top there is very little disagreement.

To that extent, the goal and its methodology of what I know of Ed Parkers personal use of the art is rather unique. It is important that one recognize my statements are not necessarily based on Ed Parkers Commercial Art, but his personally evolved use of what he learned and extrapolated. The commercial art is on its face, quite shallow and devoid of information and real knowledge that can only be overcome by competent and knowledgeable instructors. This is something that appears to be extremely rare in the martial arts in general, and in American Kenpo in particular.

Personally I draw the line with Ed Parker himself. Although I personally studied with Ark Wong, it wasnt until I met Ed Parker in 63 did he begin to help me to understand much of what I had been exposed to previously. I never studied with James or Jimmy Woo but met them both, and they were clearly a major influence on, and contributed greatly to Parkers knowledge. I heard many positive stories of Lau Bun coming from Northern California myself but never met him. 

But then there are others that must be added to the list. And then theres Huemea Tiny Lefiti, whom Ed Parker most resembled in the old days when he executed techniques. Tiny interjected Splashing Hands giving Ed Parkers movements more of a contemporary flavor over more traditional Chinese Arts. Wally Jay via Henry Okazaki who influenced the Chin Na Parker was learning from Ark Wong and also too brought its concepts into the 20th century. Gene LeBells modern interpretations of judo and contemporary wrestling also contributed much to Parkers counter-grappling knowledge, which he spent a considerable amount of time perfecting. You must include Sea Oh Choi and later Bong Soo Han (whom he did a movie with) brought contributions, as did Tadashi Yamashita who in turn took from Kenpo via Tina Tuiolosega. There are many others but my point is a simple one.

First off, we must understand the whole question of lineage as it applies to the martial arts is a Japanese concept. The Chinese, for the most part, always kept the significant portions of their art within the family, passing it from father to son etc. The arts were "family arts" with many carrying the family names or family created names. The Japanese however culturally trace everything and anything with accompanying certifications. You can literally get certificates indicating you are a "master table setter." This is where this whole lineage thing gains its importance. Lineage is supposed to indicate you have been given the "correct way" to do something. Not necessarily the best or practical way, just the way the lineage you have chosen wants it done. 

That's because the cultural aspect of the modern Japanese arts is not rooted in "fighting," only in the "idea" of fighting used to foster personal discipline and enlightenment, as per their cultural Code of Bushido perspective. Therefore Lineage is very important to the Japanese, if one is supposed to be teaching something the "correct way." Thus the term Do or Way attached to all of their warrior art disciplines.

The American culture is very much different. In the American culture we are absolutely results driven. That is what allows someone like Bruce Lee who was teaching at 19 after a few years of Wing Chun training to "do his own thing." He was only 24 and a "master" when he gave his famous demo at the International Karate Championships in Long Beach California. Bruce's lineage here was not a factor, as long as he could demonstrate the effectiveness of what he did. His credibility rested in his own hands, as most true modern masters.

Lineage can indicate where an instructor received his instruction, or certification (Black Belt) or it can indicate the style / school or Ryu he is teaching. In my opinion, and this is what Ed Parker felt as well, in America your lineage stops with the person who "taught" you directly. The person who "taught" you may have lineage to someone, but that doesn't mean you do. Additionally even this lineage has no meaning with regard to what YOU yourself decide to teach or your ability as an instructor or practitioner positive or negative. 

SGM Parker make the statement that his American Kenpo had very little to do with Prof. Chow, and nothing to do with Chows collaborative associate, James Mitose. Although Chow taught Parker, what Ed Parker eventually began to teach had very little to do with anything Chow physically taught. This is another example of why the lineage stops with "your" teacher. A simple example is, Chow is not in My Lineage, even though he is prominent in my teachers. 

But what of the question of "collaboration." Gene LaBell and Ed Parker got together and exchanged valuable information for years. Is Gene LaBell one of Ed Parker's teachers/students? Is Gene LaBell in his lineage like Chow? More than Chow? Less than Chow? When you go to a seminar or camp, do you suddenly become part of the lineage of whoever is teaching? 

The significance of lineage is essentially left to the individuals credibility. If you are a student of Parker (as I was,) and you take a class with another teacher (as I did) does that change or enhance your lineage? Only you can say. 

Would you allow a person, who you had promoted during your early years as a Black Belt, to include your name in their lineage, if what you now teach is radically different, and/or your instruction now much more advanced? What if they now taught what was only a small percentage of what you passed on to them? Maybe what you teach and require for Black Belt now is different from when they were promoted? Would it be acceptable to continue using your name to promote or market what they are now teaching as many do with the Parker name for the lineage connection? 

The conclusion is Lineage insinuates some kind of relationship. The TWO parties involved can only define the extent of that relationship, and even they may not feel the same way over time all the time. Clearly lineage as I see it must be mutually agreed upon to have any validity. I myself have a black belt who insists I never promoted him, even though he studied with me for years, my signature is on all his I.K.K.A black belt diploma, and his test was witnessed by many. He is on the Parker family tree under my name, placed there by Ed Parker. 

For reasons of his own he has chosen to remove me from his lineage, and claims only Ed Parker even though Parker didnt claim him. If you speak of "historical accuracy" the evidence is clear he had a relationship with me. Is he in my lineage? The answer is clearly no! Was he my student and did I promote him? Yes!

One thing for sure, lineage should not be used like a blue blood line. This is America. Pedigree is for animals. We should all look at SGM Parker as the example, and take the challenge to improve Kenpo. It is indeed a challenge, but that challenge should be to improve YOUR Kenpo, not Ed Parkers.

Kenpo has become a generic term. What you get depends on who teaches you. Everyone competes for students because it means revenue and that is the reason most organizations exist and NOT for the benefit of the student, but for their own. Instructors are trying to make it non-generic by claiming Ed Parker's Lineage and inferring specific curriculum, but is it Billy Bobs Kenpo, or Ed Parkers? The answer is both and neither.

Lineage is moot, but history is a different story. Chow is in my history, (like many others) not my lineage.


----------



## Michael Billings

Good perspective Doc.  What "influences" you, or contributes to your training, i.e. seminars, camps, etc., is not necessarily a part of your "lineage", as lineage implies a much more formal relationship, nor is it necessarily consentual.  Ed Parker, Sr. was in many, many Black Belt student's lineage when he was alive, but this did not mean he had ever even heard their names, the organization was so large and fragmented even then.  Imagine what it is now with all the "new" organizations since his death?

History v. lineage is a nice way of addressing the difference.  People should not get their you know whats in a wad over the difference.  While it can be a "hot" topic, especially in more traditional arts, Kenpo is now so ecclectic and to some extent generic, that it all falls under the umbrella of EPAK ... unless it is NOT, then, why should everyone else worry about it?  You are only cutting your own line short, which is your choice.

-Michael


----------



## Nightingale

I would say that Chow should be included in Mr. Parker's lineage, but not in American Kenpo's lineage, because American Kenpo originated with Mr. Parker.  

a different example:

Art Fry invented the post-it (with a little help from Spencer Silver who invented the sticky stuff).  Should we also include in the credit of who invented the post-it, the ancient egyptians, who invented paper in approximately 3000 BCE???

We have to be reasonable here.  Art Fry invented the post-it.  It was his own unique creation, built with resources provided by others.  Ditto with American Kenpo.  It is unique beginning with Ed Parker, therefore, he should be credited as its founder and creator, and the lineage should begin with him.


----------



## Zoran

Well that was a fun read.

My, outsiders, point of view is this.

1. Chow is a part of Ed Paker's Kenpo lineage.
2. Chow is also a part of American Kenpo lineage.
3. Chow has *some* influence in the origins of American Kenpo.
4. The origins of American Kenpo comes from the experieces and the mind of Ed Parker. Which if he wasn't the man he was, there would never be an American Kenpo.

I sometimes wonder what SGM Parker would say if he could speak to us now. From what I've learned from others that knew him well, he would probably say "Chow was my teacher", and end it with that. Coming from a system that has gone it's own route from the 60's to now, I find this debate and heat generating from it somewhat odd (actually I find a lot of AK-ist quirks odd). I come from a system unique from the system taught by John McSweeney to my instructor. The same can be said about the system of McSweeney compared to Parker. Yet it never would dawn on us to say McSweeney or Parker is not part of our lineage.

Really what it all boils down to is you can believe what you wish and give credit to your past teachers any way you wish. Call it lineage, or call it history. Semantics is irrelevant, what is relevant is training and giving credit where credit is due (although not reqired, just respectfull).


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Adam and Eve are in the lineage of EPAK.  This thread is so silly.  Really, it is all semantics.  It is about as relevant as debating whether Mr. Parker habitually tied his left shoe or his right shoe first.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Adam and Eve are in the lineage of EPAK. This thread is so silly. Really, it is all semantics. It is about as relevant as debating whether Mr. Parker habitually tied his left shoe or his right shoe first.


I'm going to make an argument for the right shoe.  I haven't figured out how, yet, but I'll get there. And it will have something to do with stepping forward into a right neutral bow.


----------



## Mark Weiser

Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead.  Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.


----------



## Bill Lear

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead.  Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.



I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.

 :asian:


----------



## Doc

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.
> 
> :asian:


Amen


----------



## Goldendragon7

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage.
> 
> American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker.
> 
> While Mr. Chow _certainly_ played a part in Mr. Parker's *early* years of training he _*did not*_ participate in the _creation_ of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.
> :asian:


 Hey....... now you're getting it!  You Da Man! (now if we can just get everybody else on the same page)


----------



## Pacificshore

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.
> 
> :asian:


The same would hold true for Kajukenbo.  Although Professor Chow was Sijo Emperado's instructor, Sijo Emperado developed his system with 4 other martial artist.  While Emperado's linage would include Professor Chow, I would gather that all of his black belts line would end with him, Emperado, at the top :asian:


----------



## GAB

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead. Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.


Hi all,

Pretty simply stated and true.

Both EPAK and Kajukenbo are in the lineage of Proffesor Chow, Both EPAK and Kajukenbo give credit to Chow for their beginings. So what is the problem?

Like Yogi said, "when you come to a fork (Y) in the road take it", they both did, but they both created that Y, more power to them in my book.

If you want to go back to the roots, that is fine also and if you want to go on with the inovators that is good too.

If you look at the weapons of war, Guns, Knives, Sticks they are all useful but if all you have are empty hands, well hope you are good at what you do.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Kenpohermit

I voted NO. While Professor Chow taught Mr. Parker his style of Kenpo. 
It was Mr. Parker who created American Kenpo and the founder of a 
system is the one who goes on top of a lineage. Musashi for example learned
from his father as well as a number of others yet upon creating Niten Ichi Ryu
he became the founder. The reason I use Musashi as an example is because I 
noticed that most of the people that seemed offended that in American Kenpo 
we dont include Prof. Chow for the lineage were from "more" traditional martial 
arts back grounds, so I figured I'd give a some what "traditional" example. 
Another example is Morihei Ushiba founder of Aikido, In Aikido he is the 
founder his teachers were many and they are aknowledged in the history
leading up to the creation of that system but not in the lineage of the system its self. 

I sometimes get the feeling that the some of the more traditional folks just cant stand to have an American in origin system, they wanna try to find ways to say it comes from an asian master or it comes from anceint China or Japanese Samurai etc. It's a shame if my assumption is correct because martial arts are not limited to any race or culture. If it makes them feel any better Ed Parker has the blood of a Hawaiian king so now can he please be the head of the system he created without some trying to take away from his credit!


----------



## Doc

As an American holding fast to the American Culture against the forces of what seems to be an avalanche of muti-culturalism, I don't think the term "lineage" has much meaning in our culture. Lineage is just another word for "pedigree." We American's are "mongrels" who focus on getting the job done, and if you can do that, nobody cares about your "pedigree" or lineage. "Lineage is a European (bloodline), and Japanese (the WAY you do) invention that places great emphasis on whom you were born to, where you come from, or that your "teacher lineage" proves you know the "correct" WAY something is supposed to be done.

Lineage was never an issue for Emperado, Parker, or even Chow. Why? because they could knock you on your can, and that makes "pedegree" and "lineage" moot in a fighting art. For other more cultural based disciplines whose emphasis lies elsewhere wrapped in their rituals of bowing, titles, extreme codes of honor, and grunts of admonition, that may be a different story.

In America its not about pedegree or lineage, but simply a matter of history. Not who your parents were but who you are. When you examine history, many have a place in the telling of how things came to pass, but lineage? No! The many faces of Ed Parker's own brand of Kenpo began with him, and although Chow is a part of his and all of our Kenpo history (and Mitose too), The only person upstream in my Kenpo teaching was Ed Parker Sr.

If you insist on using the word "lineage," add "teacher" in front of it and then it begins to make more sense. Talk about how who taught you and who taught them, etc. Otherwise you're just talking "pedegree" as if that somehow makes someone legitimate if their pedegree is correct. Here's a flash. The majority of Ed Parker's black belts over his lifetime sucked. So much for "lineage."

Let's see now, I'm in every volume of Infinite Insights, I'm in the Parker videos, I have my diplomas including that last 7th,  I ran the IKC for 12 years and wrote the rules book, and oh yes, I'm listed as first generation on the one and only family tree published by Ed Parker. Does that make me acceptable? For some, no. For others maybe, but accept me or not on my own knowledge and ability. This is America and I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## GAB

Hi Doc,

With all due respects Doc...

Everyone has a lineage, whether you like it or not, it is still your lineage. Ancestry is the term you are looking for.

You need to stick with the definitions as they are, not make them up to fit into your own desires...

Ed Parker borrowed and used what he learned from others, Yes he made up a fine system and called it American. 

But you still go back to your "roots" don't you??? 

So should others that have followed in the paths of Giants. It is not like we are talking the "Phoenix" here.

My thoughts... 

Regards, Gary






			
				Doc said:
			
		

> As an American holding fast to the American Culture against the forces of what seems to be an avalanche of muti-culturalism, I don't think the term "lineage" has much meaning in our culture. Lineage is just another word for "pedigree." We American's are "mongrels" who focus on getting the job done, and if you can do that, nobody cares about your "pedigree" or lineage. "Lineage is a European (bloodline), and Japanese (the WAY you do) invention that places great emphasis on whom you were born to, where you come from, or that your "teacher lineage" proves you know the "correct" WAY something is supposed to be done.
> 
> Lineage was never an issue for Emperado, Parker, or even Chow. Why? because they could knock you on your can, and that makes "pedegree" and "lineage" moot in a fighting art. For other more cultural based disciplines whose emphasis lies elsewhere wrapped in their rituals of bowing, titles, extreme codes of honor, and grunts of admonition, that may be a different story.
> 
> In America its not about pedegree or lineage, but simply a matter of history. Not who your parents were but who you are. When you examine history, many have a place in the telling of how things came to pass, but lineage? No! The many faces of Ed Parker's own brand of Kenpo began with him, and although Chow is a part of his and all of our Kenpo history (and Mitose too), The only person upstream in my Kenpo teaching was Ed Parker Sr.
> 
> If you insist on using the word "lineage," add "teacher" in front of it and then it begins to make more sense. Talk about how who taught you and who taught them, etc. Otherwise you're just talking "pedegree" as if that somehow makes someone legitimate if their pedegree is correct. Here's a flash. The majority of Ed Parker's black belts over his lifetime sucked. So much for "lineage."
> 
> Let's see now, I'm in every volume of Infinite Insights, I'm in the Parker videos, I have my diplomas including that last 7th, I ran the IKC for 12 years and wrote the rules book, and oh yes, I'm listed as first generation on the one and only family tree published by Ed Parker. Does that make me acceptable? For some, no. For others maybe, but accept me or not on my own knowledge and ability. This is America and I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Kenpohermit

>>Here's a flash. The majority of Ed Parker's black belts over his lifetime sucked. So much for "lineage."<<  

Which one's didnt suck so I know where to go to learn the "American Kenpo"
System from the founder's non-sucky black belt instructors?    


>>but accept me or not on my own knowledge and ability. This is America and I wouldn't have it any other way.<< 

I agree "results" are one of the great things about American Kenpo rather then rely on lineage, etc. Just kind of funny and sad at the same time when 
it seems like it just burns some folks that American Kenpo is a system that holds its own yet does not come from the mystical world of asian masters and secret passed down densho scrolls, but rather the genius of Mr. Parker and his result driven practical, scientific system. I guess they feel cheated that they are still waiting on the "Secrets" to become effective, at least they have an 
anceint lineage lol  :uhyeah: 


                                             Yours in Kenpo 
                                                       Sami


----------



## GAB

Sami,

You are truly missing the point of what the word lineage means.

Take for example the word "Kenpo". That in it's self will give you a clue as to the lineage. 

American should give you a clue.

The two put together should also give you some information as to what it is.

Based on the information gathered in the above, you now know the lineage.

It came from Hawaii...which got it from Japan, Okinawa etc.

There is the lineage no matter if you fail to see it, it is still there...

Regards, Gary






I agree "results" are one of the great things about American Kenpo rather then rely on lineage, etc. Just kind of funny and sad at the same time when 
it seems like it just burns some folks that American Kenpo is a system that holds its own yet does not come from the mystical world of asian masters and secret passed down densho scrolls, but rather the genius of Mr. Parker and his result driven practical, scientific system. I guess they feel cheated that they are still waiting on the "Secrets" to become effective, at least they have an 
anceint lineage lol :uhyeah: 


Yours in Kenpo 
Sami[/QUOTE]


----------



## The Kai

In term of lineage, I think we have to take the normal process of evolution into account.

While the Model T, may be a direct ancestor of the car I drive now, I don't really brag that "This baby is from the Model T".  All the arts have changed, even the traditional ones
Like it or not the 60-70's were kind of a Plaezoic era for the Martial Arts, find your history there


----------



## distalero

Doc said:
			
		

> ...In America its not about pedegree or lineage, but simply a matter of history. Not who your parents were but who you are...




Just a technical point, but you would have to be from one of two general social classes to even say this. The "answer" from the class that wouldn't agree would be to politely smile. This class, by the way, will never have a need to learn the MA.  :supcool:


----------



## rmcrobertson

Uh-oh, I think I agree. A copy of "The American Adam," goes out to the "Distalero..."

History always matters. Part of our problem is that we persistently try to moosh history together with a hunt for Dad...a very restrictive, phallogocentric (the dick, the word, the center) version of history and our relation to it. 

Mr. Chow is in there, direct line. Mr. Parker did something new with what he'd learned, at a specific time and place in the tangle of social reality. We might want to deal with the reality that a) we can't do what Mr. Parker did just because we wish we could; b) the history of kenpo, like the history of all martial arts, is a tangle.

In point of fact, we have what the late Edward Said called a, "filiative," relation with folks like Mr. Chow.


----------



## Doc

distalero said:
			
		

> Just a technical point, but you would have to be from one of two general social classes to even say this. The "answer" from the class that wouldn't agree would be to politely smile. This class, by the way, will never have a need to learn the MA.  :supcool:


Funny. Obsurd but funny.


----------



## Kenpohermit

>>Sami, You are truly missing the point of what the word lineage means.<<

I have a simple question for you Gab, do you study "American Kenpo" ?

The reason I ask is that if you did you would see that this system is unique it is not
the same as Mitose's "Ryu ha" ... Its not the same as Chow's "Kara-ho"...Just as when 
someone CREATES there own system the lineage for that system starts with them. Other wise I will trace American Kenpo's lineage to Uoogdog the Caveman who created the pimp slap check. 

You keep saying there is a lineage even if I dont want to admit to it. Well, tell me exactly what that lineage is, Id like to see where you END the lineage and remember Lineage is one thing and historical influences are another. Or are you saying Proffessor Chow was the founder of American Kenpo?


Respectfully 
Sami


----------



## Bill Lear

Norbert Kitz invented the first electronic calculator (Called the Anita Mk VII). I guess he should also be given credit for inventing modern day personal computers. Just look at the similarities:













How different does something have to be before it qualifies as something new or different? When is this cycle of taking the credit for someone else's work going to end? Mr. Parker is the father of American Kenpo. Mr. Chow was his teacher, not his pilot.


----------



## The Kai

Additionaly most of the Kenpo history is purely speculative before Mitose/Chow.  Roots or lineage would seem to signify a traceable history at the least.


----------



## Seabrook

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> Norbert Kitz invented the first electronic calculator (Called the Anita Mk VII). I guess he should also be given credit for inventing modern day personal computers. Just look at the similarities:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How different does something have to be before it qualifies as something new or different? When is this cycle of taking the credit for someone else's work going to end? Mr. Parker is the father of American Kenpo. Mr. Chow was his teacher, not his pilot.


Right on Billy!

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## distalero

Doc said:
			
		

> Funny. Obsurd but funny.



That class I referred to would have politely drawn me out (and privately agreed) with something like "Do you really think so?", rather than respond with the above. 
So...........do you really think so? In the interests of communication (always the real topic here even when it's being done blindly), why not state why you think it's "obsurd but funny". This always sounds more confident.
The other comment I'd make is that mcrobertson's reference to a BOOK about the subject underscores the distance and distinction from our classes and the one I was referring to.


----------



## GAB

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Right on Billy!
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Thank you Bill Lear. You have given a very good picture of what we are talking about. 

When you study American history that is what you are taught, when you study World history that is what you are taught.

Knowledge is awsome, lack of it is ignorance...

Books are stepping stones through time, put them together and and you have a path, remove one and you have lost knowledge that has to be gathered by gifted persons, then they will put the story back for you based on their expert position.

Ed Parker is just one piece of the puzzle simple as that...Towards the end also if you want to go there...

Read his book Kenpo Karate, Secrets of Chinese Karate, The Zen of Kenpo and Ed Parkers Encyclopedia of Kenpo (written and finished by his son).

Then read the Infinite Insights series... 

Very similar to Elementary school, Junior High, High school and then on to College.

It started in Hawaii for Ed Parker and it ended in Hawaii. Very Ironic in my opinion. The information he deleted was all not of his choosing, he was pushed by a higher power, so he followed in those foot steps as well...

Regards, Gary

Ps. The Universal Pattern is another Example... It would be very enlightening (bulb just turned on as in shed light on the subject) if you had not studied Spanish Fencing on prior occasion...Edit added...


----------



## rmcrobertson

Since this particular thread happens to be about a theoretical concept--history and the shape of kenpo's past--I'm not sure I see what's so damn odd about citing a BOOK that's about Americans' view of themselves in relation to history. 

One of the points that particular book makes, in fact, is that much of our national thought continues to be shaped as a sort of tense relation to the European past, in which we want to claim both strong, direct ties to that past and announce our absolute break from it.  

Hm. Does that maybe look familiar? 

However, I still think that our real relation with the past is a lot more tangled than simply finding out who Daddy was.


----------



## GAB

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, I think I agree. A copy of "The American Adam," goes out to the "Distalero..."
> 
> History always matters. Part of our problem is that we persistently try to moosh history together with a hunt for Dad...a very restrictive, phallogocentric (the dick, the word, the center) version of history and our relation to it.
> 
> Mr. Chow is in there, direct line. Mr. Parker did something new with what he'd learned, at a specific time and place in the tangle of social reality. We might want to deal with the reality that a) we can't do what Mr. Parker did just because we wish we could; b) the history of kenpo, like the history of all martial arts, is a tangle.
> 
> In point of fact, we have what the late Edward Said called a, "filiative," relation with folks like Mr. Chow.


Hi Mcrobertson,

You are very interesting to read, about your 25th or 10th or 5th post you continue to relate to the (Peter principel if you will allow that entry)...
What is the reason for this??? If I may be so bold to ask???

The continuous talk down to routine, pretty sad for a person who is supposed to be so knowledgable in the realm of English and PHD stuff...

I have to ask myself are you really? Or are you just very quick with Wikipedia and other sources of information... 

I for one would certainly like to talk to you one on one and have no other form of information other than what is captured within, and draw from your vast pool of knowledge...

Similar to a spell check I would say... Some use it some don't...

Based on your information and your narrow view of the world (yes in your own way very narrow) I would be delighted to an evening or daytime discussion while I will be down in your neck of the woods sometime in the near future.


Regards, Gary

Ps I edited this to remove an assumption from times past...Since posting this I looked at your profile up date and should have E-mailed. G


----------



## The Kai

* in which we want to claim both strong, direct ties to that past and announce our absolute break from it. 
*
Is'nt this the case with alot of kenpo, we want to do what we want, yet we also want that pedigreed.  Perhaps its this wavering between the two camps that gives kenpo it's fractious history.

To say Parker was just a piece of a puzzle is kinda rude to a man who made a hugh contribution to the art, he was a central piece whether you want to admit it or not....

A Book is not so much a stepping stone, but just a stone.  Put them together you might have a path or a wall.  Or you might imagine the wall was a path.  Predisposition colors our ability to see the past really


----------



## distalero

It's not odd. I was pointing out that it's representative. If The American Adam made a referrence to this country's ruling class (I haven't read it so I have to rely on you for this......another aspect of my point), then to that extent my comment was that you and I have to point to some 3rd party reference (The American Adam), and rely on it's accuracy. This is distance; distance from a social (and political) reality, that in fact has affected my life quite directly (military experience...and this is a MA site), and affects yours, and that was being ignored because of that by-now-tiresome aspect of American myth. Hell, even the myth is being dismantled lately.  But hey, my original comment was a "technical point", to quote myself, and a bit of a left (gasp) hand turn off the topic, so no big deal. 






			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Since this particular thread happens to be about a theoretical concept--history and the shape of kenpo's past--I'm not sure I see what's so damn odd about citing a BOOK that's about Americans' view of themselves in relation to history.
> 
> One of the points that particular book makes, in fact, is that much of our national thought continues to be shaped as a sort of tense relation to the European past, in which we want to claim both strong, direct ties to that past and announce our absolute break from it.
> 
> Hm. Does that maybe look familiar?
> 
> However, I still think that our real relation with the past is a lot more tangled than simply finding out who Daddy was.


----------



## GAB

The Kai said:
			
		

> * in which we want to claim both strong, direct ties to that past and announce our absolute break from it. *
> 
> Is'nt this the case with alot of kenpo, we want to do what we want, yet we also want that pedigreed. Perhaps its this wavering between the two camps that gives kenpo it's fractious history.
> 
> To say Parker was just a piece of a puzzle is kinda rude to a man who made a hugh contribution to the art, he was a central piece whether you want to admit it or not....
> 
> A Book is not so much a stepping stone, but just a stone. Put them together you might have a path or a wall. Or you might imagine the wall was a path. Predisposition colors our ability to see the past really


Kai,

It is not rude at all, what is rude is this thread, especially when you consider the amount of EPAK people compared to the rest of the practioner's of the various arts that are out in the world.  

This board is EPAK prone and so are others...

The nice thing about this board is the ability for all to participate. Discuss and review and read others thoughts. Unlike other boards that are so narrow and self inflating, they don't know the truth when it hits them in the face.

They will expunge you and delete your threads and condem you to heresy...

Funny if you ask me. I own this board so therfore I am able to continue my ignorance and condem you and spread untruths etc...Please, we don't want facts or other information we just want to say what our elders tell us...

Please I am not being rude and if you think so that is a problem on your own take on things...

Jigsaw puzzle still, big piece or small makes no difference. In the world of Martial arts if you were writing a book on it Kenpo would be in the last chapter and pretty close to the end of the chapter to say the least...

In America it is very big. Tracy Kenpo has more schools or did have. (under one thumb) Sijo Emperado has more schools (under one thumb). 

Remember now EPAK is very splintered, many takes on the various art form...But that is what Ed Parker wanted. The King is dead. Long live the King....

Go to places with 10,000 years of culture and then you will understand where I am coming from, visit 40 other countries and then we can talk about History of the USA and when you have maybe, just maybe, you will have a little more humbleness... 

Not that I am that humble in my thoughts, but I am very well travled and read and therefore I am prone to my own thoughts also...

I read another post that said "this is an EPAK discussion thread".

So does that mean it is the "follow the elders of the board routine"????

I am not thinking so...Just a piece of the MartialTalk puzzle, big or small, still just a piece...

Regards, Gary


----------



## The Kai

America is a very young country, our entire history as the usa is no older than some of the garages in englad!

However, EPAK'ist or not he did hab=ve a major impact on the arts.
Kenpo has a rather speculative hisory much beforetyhe 1940's, so as far as this era being the last chapter.  Lets instead say the only chapter that is verifieable?
Todd


----------



## Bill Lear

GAB said:
			
		

> Thank you Bill Lear. You have given a very good picture of what we are talking about.



You're welcome.  :asian: 




			
				GAB said:
			
		

> When you study American history that is what you are taught, when you study World history that is what you are taught.



I agree. We are talking about "American Kenpo's History" not the history of "Kenpo/Kempo".




			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Books are stepping stones through time, put them together and and you have a path, remove one and you have lost knowledge that has to be gathered by gifted persons, then they will put the story back for you based on their expert position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all books are accurate. Sometimes the truth is a little different and the books need to be revised. Mr. Parker was a black belt in Judo before he studied under William K. S. Chow. Maybe we should include his Judo teacher in the lineage of American Kenpo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Parker is just one piece of the puzzle simple as that...Towards the end also if you want to go there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about a puzzle. Nor, are we discussing THE BIGGER PICTURE of Kenpo/Kempo. We are talking about "AMERICAN KENPO". American Kenpo is Mr. Parker's creation, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read his book Kenpo Karate, Secrets of Chinese Karate, The Zen of Kenpo and Ed Parkers Encyclopedia of Kenpo (written and finished by his son).
> 
> Then read the Infinite Insights series...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read them all. Thanks.
> 
> "It was William K.S. Chow who cultivated the seed of _American_ Kenpo."
> (Excerpted from Ed Parker's Infinite Insight Into Kenpo - Volume I)
> 
> Interesting that he said this in his work. Is the tree a product of the seed or the farmer? Could the tree exist without the farmer? And, if the seed were planted somewhere else, by someone else would it still be the same kind of tree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very similar to Elementary school, Junior High, High school and then on to College.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention Kenpo Karate - Law of the Fist and the Empty Hand. I guess that would be Pre-School?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started in Hawaii for Ed Parker and it ended in Hawaii. Very Ironic in my opinion. The information he deleted was all not of his choosing, he was pushed by a higher power, so he followed in those foot steps as well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on this. What "higher power" pushed him? Is it your opinion that he simply deleted information or did he add things as well? What footsteps did he follow in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ps. The Universal Pattern is another Example... It would be very enlightening (bulb just turned on as in shed light on the subject) if you had not studied Spanish Fencing on prior occasion...Edit added...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea conveyed by each of the diagrams is similar, but not the same. The patterns are also different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## GAB

Hi Bill Lear,

Farmers only started planting in the last few years in regard's to the age of this planet...See we can never agree, on this or anything, with that type of thought pattern...

I mentioned Kenpo Karate, I did not forget it...Red and black letters same as the Author... Law of the Fist and Empty Hand would be a sub title the way I read it...

I just started reading Jamie Seabrook's new PDF Book... Gives 10% to Professor Chow...LOL...

His Judo teacher was probably just as hurt as Professor Chow by being discarded and not given respect...Might be the reason there is so much skepticisim about (Chow) him actually signing the certificate given to Ed Parker. Not my thoughts go to the "Kara Ho Thread". It will be verified...

I have no problem with Ed Parker and American Kenpo and all the other Kenpos as far as that goes, About the only one that does not give respect to Professor Chow is Ed Parkers Kenpo...Interesting to say the least...

What does GM Larry Tatum have to say on the subject???


Regards,Gary


----------



## Brian Jones

Mark me down as one who originally said no to Chow in the lineage.  Soley because I am not sure where lineage begins and ends.  Why stop with Chow? Do we include Mr. Parker's Judo instructor's teachers?  Just how far back do we go?  I wonder if the comprimise is that Mr. parker's lineage  goes back as far as you can go (if anyone cares about ths sort of thing) but EPAK's lineage starts with Mr. Parker.

Brian Jones


----------



## Doc

Yeah, so Isaac Newton "discovered" gravity purportedly because an apple fell on his head giving him the "seed" or idea. So I guess an apple is in the lineage of Newtonian Physics.

At some point Mr. Lear, you just have to say - Duh!


----------



## Kenpohermit

Is Professor Chow in the lineage of American Kenpo? NO!

Was Professor Chow one of Mr. Parker's teachers? yes

Do I have to be "humble" because other countries have a longer history then 
the United Stated of America? HELL NO!

Do I have to include Professor Chow in the lineage of American Kenpo because
those who study other systems think American Kenpo needs to be subservent to 
the older traditional systems? HELL NO!

Did Mr. Parker need a 700 year lineage to anceint samurai warriors in order to 
create a valid system of martial art? NO, because he could knock you on your ****!

In the end, do you have to travel to asia to learn the true spirit of the martial arts because "dumb ol americans dun no notin"? NO, because we will knock you anceint tradition and all on your ****! 

Damb it I love this country and I love American Kenpo! 
(created by the one and only founder Mr. Parker)


Respectfully (but not without some Pride)
Sami


----------



## The Kai

Actually Ed Parker always acknowledges Chow as his teacher.  what's the beef?


----------



## KENPOJOE

Hi Folks!
I started reading this thread and I was amazed that "certain Individuals" will not give Prof. Chow his due listing as one of the main contributors to what we now know as "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" [EPAK]. As someone who has worked with several martial artists who either trained with Prof Chow or his students, I always see elements that obviously were used by Mr. Parker as the foundation for what would become "American Kenpo". Whether it was raking strikes or double strikes or being aware of "every block is a strike,every strike is a block" these aspects are intergral to what American Kenpo is today. Simply stated, Mr. Parker got his Black Belt from Prof.Chow and irregardless of personal differences they may have had, Mr. Parker always gave credit to Prof. Chow and was even at his funeral in Hawaii in 1981. To not include Prof. Chow as a keystone in the development of American Kenpo is a gross breach of the history of kenpo in general and specifically Ed Parker's American Kenpo.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> But then the next logicle question would be should one seek out Chow's art for a deeper understanding, and I think the answer to that question would be "No; because, it is not the direction we wish to persue."
> Sean


Hi Folks!
Dear Sean,
I, for one, HAVE sought out Prof. Chow's art to see where Mr. Parker got his inspiration to create "American Kenpo" and it never ceases to amaze me the ammount of material that was obviously the foundation for EPAK techniques we do to this day! Mr. Parker told me that "Lone Kimono" came from watching Prof. Chow defend himself at a restaurant/bar in Hawaii where Prof. Chow was seated and a guy came up and grabbed Prof. Chow's shirt as he raised a bear bottle to hit the Prof. Chow drove an upward block and broke the man's arm,swung around and buckled the arm,breaking it further as it buckled and chopped the attacker in the throat! As Mr. Parker concluded "..and he never got out of the chair!" This was only one of several examples that he sited as contributions from Prof. Chow's style.
In closing, if we had just simply asked Mr. Parker more about where his inspirations came from, then we would delagate alot more than a simple "10%" to Prof. chow's contributions to the EPAK system.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## GAB

Doc said:
			
		

> Yeah, so Isaac Newton "discovered" gravity purportedly because an apple fell on his head giving him the "seed" or idea. So I guess an apple is in the lineage of Newtonian Physics.
> 
> At some point Mr. Lear, you just have to say - Duh!


Hi Duh,

I wonder where the other 70+% are at?? Probably hanging with OFK...He is smarter then the rest of the 70+% who voted that Chow should be part of the lineage...He quit and went to another thread...

Kind of reminds me of the LDS Church, it all started in America and the Garden of Eden is not in the area of the start of the waters that flow through Iraq, it is in Missouri, OK, if you insist. 

Kenpo Joe said it a lot better then I have...                   

Johnny appleseed was there also...I thought he was only in America??

Agnostic by choice...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Bill Lear

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> I started reading this thread and I was amazed that "certain Individuals" will not give Prof. Chow his due listing as one of the main contributors to what we now know as "Ed Parker's American Kenpo" [EPAK]. As someone who has worked with several martial artists who either trained with Prof Chow or his students, I always see elements that obviously were used by Mr. Parker as the foundation for what would become "American Kenpo". Whether it was raking strikes or double strikes or being aware of "every block is a strike,every strike is a block" these aspects are intergral to what American Kenpo is today. Simply stated, Mr. Parker got his Black Belt from Prof.Chow and irregardless of personal differences they may have had, Mr. Parker always gave credit to Prof. Chow and was even at his funeral in Hawaii in 1981. To not include Prof. Chow as a keystone in the development of American Kenpo is a gross breach of the history of kenpo in general and specifically Ed Parker's American Kenpo.
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE



Giving him credit for teaching Mr. Parker is one thing. Giving him credit for the creation of American Kenpo is quite different. I hope this helps.


----------



## Doc

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> Dear Sean,
> I, for one, HAVE sought out Prof. Chow's art to see where Mr. Parker got his inspiration to create "American Kenpo" and it never ceases to amaze me the ammount of material that was obviously the foundation for EPAK techniques we do to this day! Mr. Parker told me that "Lone Kimono" came from watching Prof. Chow defend himself at a restaurant/bar in Hawaii where Prof. Chow was seated and a guy came up and grabbed Prof. Chow's shirt as he raised a bear bottle to hit the Prof. Chow drove an upward block and broke the man's arm,swung around and buckled the arm,breaking it further as it buckled and chopped the attacker in the throat! As Mr. Parker concluded "..and he never got out of the chair!" This was only one of several examples that he sited as contributions from Prof. Chow's style.
> In closing, if we had just simply asked Mr. Parker more about where his inspirations came from, then we would delagate alot more than a simple "10%" to Prof. chow's contributions to the EPAK system.
> I hope that I was of some service,
> KENPOJOE



Well I did ask him and Ed Parker told me face to face, "MAYBE 3%." Anything else is just being politically correct, or "... out of respect." as he put it. All styles have upward, downward, inward, outward blocks, so there is a commonality between all the arts. YOU may choose to delegate more than "10%," I do not having known the man since 1963, and he didn't either based on our conversations.

Ed Parker acknowledged Chow was his only teacher and DID credit him with the "INSPIRATION" to pursue an art based on modern day empty hand "SELF DEFENSE," unlike most other traditional arts of the day. He DID NOT credit Chow for the physical execution of what came to be first "Chinese Kenpo" when he left the Chow influenced "Kenpo Karate" roots, or any of his many forms of "American Kenpo" he later developed, including the commercial version most of you do now. 

Many of the "Ancients" (Senior to your seniors) like myself do not teach that form of kenpo and we are well aware it bears no relationship to anything Chow did beyond the superficial commonality of most arts that kick and strike. In as much the commercial Kenpo came much later in the seventies, I don't see any Chow relationship other than the obvious there either. 

I respect Chow's place in our HISTORY which is quite significant. By all accounts he was one hell of a martial artist on many levels OF THE DAY, and was more than competent. He wasn't call "Thunderbolt" for "nothing." I for one being the heretic I am, credit just as much Sijo Adriano Emperado for the ultimate path and development of Parker's direction. Clearly Sijo supported Parker long after Chow was "out of the picture" and I know Parker had much respect for Sijo, even when his relationship with Chow "soured." Parker was always hurt by Chow's action because he felt he had kept all of his promises to Chow, and even attempted to bring Chow to the mainland as he had promised.

I respect what Parker told me, and I respect where what I was taught came from - and it wasn't Chow, Mitose, or anyone else. I can, like everyone else, respect the teachings of my instructor without disrespecting Chow. These are two mutually exclusive situations.

Some are enamored with history and lineage for legitimacy. If you do American Kenpo your HISTORY pretty much ends with Chow. If you are looking for your PEDEGREE lineage, it stops with whomever taught you, and only if he mutually CLAIMS YOU.

No you weren't - Thanks.


----------



## Bill Lear

Doc said:
			
		

> Yeah, so Isaac Newton "discovered" gravity purportedly because an apple fell on his head giving him the "seed" or idea. So I guess an apple is in the lineage of Newtonian Physics.
> 
> At some point Mr. Lear, you just have to say - Duh!



You're right.  :asian:


----------



## GAB

Hi all,

Well we have gone from hither to yon, been a good discussion, no one is trying to change anyones mind here but if you are in a democracy and we are...

The 70%+ are the ones that are the silent majority and since none of them knew Ed Parker like you did Doc, I guess they are all wrong also...

So with Doc resorting to drawing the big gun... I still stand by my posts...

Take care, Regards, Gary


----------



## Ray

GAB said:
			
		

> Kind of reminds me of the LDS Church, it all started in America and the Garden of Eden is not in the area of the start of the waters that flow through Iraq, it is in Missouri, OK, if you insist.


That is completely off the subject.  It probably should be in a different area of postings; if at all here.  The discussion of whether Chow is in the EPAK lineage or not is not furthered by that comment.

As an analogy it is not a good one. There is no question as to whether Parker or Chow existed; they both did.  For your analogy: you have the Garden of Eden for which existence is debatable.  Then you have the whole argument that Noah built an ark in preparation for a world wide flood and when the waters receeded, his ark found Mt. Ararat; not too far from where his ark started.  I would have thought that the ark would have travelled a little farther.  If the ark did travel during the world wide flood, it conceivably could have been able to travel the distance of the Atlantic and the additional distance.  Although we have no way of knowing what the ocean currents might have been doing during this flood, but Heyerdahl was able to cross the atlantic in 57 days using a boat made of reeds.

But back to the discussion.  Anyone can read that Parker thought highly of Chow, but history records that Parker made the analysis and breakthroughs that made American Kenpo what it is.  Certainly there is no insult in Chow to say such a thing.  If he was the awesome martial artist that it is said he was then he was.  Parker created a system and named principles; and popularized Kenpo (quite an accomplishment for someone who was LDS, no?).

Newton wasn't slighted by Einstein's accomplishments and the teachers of neither are very famous. But both Chow and Parker are famous.  Let Chow have his place as a martial artist who was renowned, and taught some pretty famous martial artists in addition to Parker.  Let Parker have his place as the man who revolutionized kenpo.


----------



## Kenpohermit

Kenpojoe I dont think anyone who said Chow was not in the lineage of American Kenpo was trying in any way to be rude to Chow or to not include him in American Kenpo's history. Mr. Parker already included him in the history for those who think American Kenpo does not give him credit (go read infinite insights volume 1)...However the only reason I am pushing the issue is it has to do with peoples ignorant comments about American Kenpo as a whole not giving Chow the respect he deserves, that is a load of BS. It reminds me of those kinds of people who insist that pure martial arts only exists if it comes from an Asian Master, those people get under my skin and thus why I have been vocal about it. By the way Kenpojoe this is me Sam aka "zen"

American Kenpo's founder was Ed Parker, all I am saying is it was not Chow who founded American Kenpo, he probably had a huge influence in its creation being Mr. Parker's teacher but... In every lineage of a martial art I have ever looked into always started the lineage with the founder and included the founders teachers as only part of the history or simply left them out and said the founder was inspired by the heavens.

Respectfully
Sami


----------



## GAB

Ray said:
			
		

> That is completely off the subject. It probably should be in a different area of postings; if at all here. The discussion of whether Chow is in the EPAK lineage or not is not furthered by that comment.
> 
> As an analogy it is not a good one. There is no question as to whether Parker or Chow existed; they both did. For your analogy: you have the Garden of Eden for which existence is debatable. Then you have the whole argument that Noah built an ark in preparation for a world wide flood and when the waters receeded, his ark found Mt. Ararat; not too far from where his ark started. I would have thought that the ark would have travelled a little farther. If the ark did travel during the world wide flood, it conceivably could have been able to travel the distance of the Atlantic and the additional distance. Although we have no way of knowing what the ocean currents might have been doing during this flood, but Heyerdahl was able to cross the atlantic in 57 days using a boat made of reeds.
> ****
> 
> Hi Ray,
> 
> My comment was put forth because Doc brought up his comment about Newton and the apple, which was way off topic so I did that one to be able to stir someone awake to comment on my statement. So I then could comment like I am doing, It was a bait similar to Doc's comment.
> 
> Now your comment is even further, but that is fine with me. You are content in what you say, I am fine with what I am speaking...
> 
> ****
> 
> But back to the discussion. Anyone can read that Parker thought highly of Chow, but history records that Parker made the analysis and breakthroughs that made American Kenpo what it is. Certainly there is no insult in Chow to say such a thing. If he was the awesome martial artist that it is said he was then he was. Parker created a system and named principles; and popularized Kenpo (quite an accomplishment for someone who was LDS, no?).
> 
> Newton wasn't slighted by Einstein's accomplishments and the teachers of neither are very famous. But both Chow and Parker are famous. Let Chow have his place as a martial artist who was renowned, and taught some pretty famous martial artists in addition to Parker. Let Parker have his place as the man who revolutionized kenpo.


****

Sure he was (Newton), he was slighted by Doc's comment, But Doc slights quite a bit and still gets away with it, where others don't seem to be able...That also is fine with me since it proves that this is not as civil as some like to pretend...

Parker created a good system and he called it American Kenpo...
He begged borrowed and stole much of what he used, pretty simple in my take of things...

Since Doc wants to pull out Parkers name and say I was there and we talked about this and that so therefore I am right and you are wrong...Well there is no way of going into that den, since it is a bait..

Well I was around at that particular time in the San Fernando Valley and other locations very close. I will say this, I had personal experience also with meeting (on the pulpit Ed) So lets not go there...

Chow was in the lineage. Kenpo came to the soon to be American soil, by GM James Mitose. Chow was not a founder of American Kenpo but he was surly part of the lineage...

Like I said this is a democracy and 70+% say it is in their opinion part of the lineage, that is good enough for me...Like Doc said its American and proud of it, well so is the LDS Church so be proud of that also, but it still does not change the facts... The truth is the truth and 70%+ will attest to that...

Regards, Gary


----------



## The Kai

Actuaaly Doc did'nt really slight anybody.  he offered an opinion and a bird eye view.  If you don't want to accept either one that is your problem



_"He begged borrowed and stole much of what he used, pretty simple in my take of things". _That statement is a slight (IMHO).  Pretty simple?  EDAK has created some great fighters thru the years.

*So you figure 70% of people think Chow is in the lineage...What's your point*???


----------



## tshadowchaser

Ladies and gentelmen may we please stay on topic and leave the personal thoughts about each other and thoughts that off subject off this thread.


----------



## Ray

GAB said:
			
		

> he was slighted by Doc's comment, But Doc slights quite a bit and still gets away with it, where others don't seem to be able...That also is fine with me since it proves that this is not as civil as some like to pretend...


I hope I didn't seem uncivil when responding to your comments.  My issue isn't anyone's view on how important Chow was or Parker was; I never met either but I am very happy to have learned what kenpo I do know (and hope to learn more). 

My issue was the comment about the LDS church's belief that the Garden of Eden was in the Americas.  It was a huge decision for me to join the LDS church in 2000--now I hear off-hand remarks in the oddest places.  Take, for example, a business mgt prof who was explaining how we're all economically interrelated: He says as he draws on the board "This guy over here loses his job.  Now he has to cancel his cable subscription.  And when his wife shops, hell, let's say he's a Mormon and he has ten wives..."  



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Parker created a good system and he called it American Kenpo...He begged borrowed and stole much of what he used, pretty simple in my take of things...


I once thought to take Judo classes near Moline, Iowa.  The man who ran the studio asked me about my background; when I mentioned Kenpo he also said Parker stole much of what he used.  He seemed pretty angry about it--I don't know why he was.  



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> ...I had personal experience also with meeting (on the pulpit Ed) So lets not go there...


 You've picqued my interest.  Send me a PM if you like, but I'd like to hear more of what you mean about the "pulpit."



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Chow was in the lineage. Kenpo came to the soon to be American soil, by GM James Mitose. Chow was not a founder of American Kenpo but he was surly part of the lineage...


Okay.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Like I said this is a democracy and 70+% say it is in their opinion part of the lineage, that is good enough for me...Like Doc said its American and proud of it, well so is the LDS Church so be proud of that also, but it still does not change the facts... The truth is the truth and 70%+ will attest to that...


Okay.  You knew Parker and Doc knew Parker and you have different opinions.  It's plain to me that whether Chow was a part of the lineage is opinion...facts aren't made truth by popular vote.  

I do enjoy hearing the opinions of people like you and Doc; people who were there and have a personal knowledge.  Even if you guys do disagree.  So keep it up.


----------



## The Kai

Except GAB never actually met Parker...


----------



## Ray

The Kai said:
			
		

> Except GAB never actually met Parker...





			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Since Doc wants to pull out Parkers name and say I was there and we talked about this and that so therefore I am right and you are wrong...Well there is no way of going into that den, since it is a bait..
> 
> Well I was around at that particular time in the San Fernando Valley and other locations very close. I will say this, I had personal experience also with meeting (on the pulpit Ed) So lets not go there...


I must have mis-interpreted what he meant then.  To me it sounds like he said he met Ed Parker; it sounded to me like he went to church with Parker.


----------



## GAB

The Kai said:
			
		

> Actuaaly Doc did'nt really slight anybody. he offered an opinion and a bird eye view. If you don't want to accept either one that is your problem
> 
> 
> 
> _"He begged borrowed and stole much of what he used, pretty simple in my take of things". _That statement is a slight (IMHO). Pretty simple? EDAK has created some great fighters thru the years.
> 
> *So you figure 70% of people think Chow is in the lineage...What's your point*???


Hi Kai,

The poll show's 70+% are in favor of ....YES.... Chow was in the lineage.

My humble opinion is he did beg, borrow and stole, it happens all the time but most will give credit where credit is due...Take the book "Secrets of Chinese Karate" for starters...

He produced some great fighters, that is a matter of discussion of deeper merit, usually these fighters were great because they were..Any good trainer worth his salt will tell you, I just guided him he was great when he walked in....

I have quite a bit of admiration for the Man who created American Kenpo, it does not mean I put him in a status of a god. He would be proud of that, he only believed in one god and never did care to be placed there....

What I am objecting to is the shirt tail followers continuing to put words in the mouth of a man who has been gone for 14 years plus....

He was a Martial Arts teacher and salesman, a good one at that.

With that I have concluded my thoughts on this subject...

Reggards, Gary


----------



## The Kai

Thank you 

Your conclusion is as confusing and psyco as the beginning

Of course the fighters that came out of the EPAK circles were already great!!!  Actually it is certain skill to recognize, nourish and reach that talent, but no, ed did'nt do anything he was busy out there stealing!!


----------



## Bill Lear

The Kai said:
			
		

> Thank you
> 
> Your conclusion is as confusing and psyco as the beginning
> 
> Of course the fighters that came out of the EPAK circles were already great!!!  Actually it is certain skill to recognize, nourish and reach that talent, but no, ed did'nt do anything he was busy out there stealing!!



How do you make your house the biggest in town? Gary's method seems to involve a recking ball.

Yes, Mr. Parker was only human... and he did make mistakes. Who hasn't? Gary Brewer, on the other hand, is faultless and we should all worship him.
artyon:


----------



## KenpoTess

* Mod Note

No matter what we think of each other.. let's keep the personal comments off the board.. 
Obviously there's 2 sides of the fence.. Those who think Chow was.. and those that don't.  
I just don't understand why the debate.

who cares.. Live for today and let the historians figure out what Yesterday meant.

~Tess
-MT S Mod
*


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> * Mod Note
> 
> No matter what we think of each other.. let's keep the personal comments off the board..
> Obviously there's 2 sides of the fence.. Those who think Chow was.. and those that don't.
> I just don't understand why the debate.
> 
> who cares.. Live for today and let the historians figure out what Yesterday meant.
> 
> ~Tess
> -MT S Mod
> *



Yes, Tess.  There are two sides to the fence.  

Occasionally, someone falls off the fence, hits their head on the ground, and gets severe brain damage.

Billy has just pointed out one of the fallen wandering around this thread.


----------



## KenpoTess

brain injuries amongst MA'ers.. Whoda thunk it..


----------



## Bill Lear

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> brain injuries amongst MA'ers.. Whoda thunk it..



You're right! It's brain damage! It has to be!  :whip:

I don't know why I didn't see this before!


----------



## Doc

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> You're right! It's brain damage! It has to be!  :whip:
> 
> I don't know why I didn't see this before!


Let's just hope he is true to  his word and is through - although if I had a buck for everytime he said he was and continued on. When nobody plays, he even answers his own posts. Could that be construed as "talking to ones self?"


----------



## Goldendragon7

Doc said:
			
		

> Let's just hope he is true to his word and is through - although if I had a buck for everytime he said he was and continued on. When nobody plays, he even answers his own posts. Could that be construed as "talking to ones self?"


 Can ...... I say ...... Can I say ..... _*Amen Brotha*_....... I mean..... I mean...... YES, we can only hope! Idiots should have their own playpen LOL..... Oh man..... sometimes I crackmyself up! :boxing::btg::ninja::uzi::xtrmshock:zap::duel::samurai::ripper::goop::sniper:


----------



## Kenpodoc

I vote no.

EPAK starts with Mr. Parker.  Mr. Chow was his teacher but that was a different system. Both men trained a remarkable number of influential martial artists.  

Jeff


----------



## dubljay

I would also have to vote no on this topic.  While I am not as versed in the histories of the arts as the rest of you, however if I understand it correctly it was SGM Parker that broke from tradition and applied a modern "scientific" approach to the arts.  It was **** shift into a more "scientific" methodology that makes EPAK (and the branch arts) what they are.

 Just my opinion and I could be wrong.


 -Josh-


----------



## Kenpohermit

To the "bright guy" who accused Mr. Parker of "stealing" I have 2 points I will say to you.


1. Up until you said that stuff about Mr. Parker there was a chance that someone might have been inclined to be mislead by your ignorant statements
however after those comments you pretty much ended the chances of anyone with a brain being mislead by you, you should have kept from insulting the founder of the system your trying to pretend you know something about.

2. Who do you think OWNS the principles of motion? Who do you think 
owns Kenpo that can say Mr. Parker stole it from them? That is the heart of the problem, you assume that Kenpo is owned by some traditional master, it is not. It is not owned by Chow nor by the Chinese nor by the Japanese. People who invent are often inspired by things that does not mean they are stealing specially when they make something better. In my opinion American Kenpo is an improvement on Chow's teachings. Making them better, easier to learn, understand and teach... I would say your statement is "uninformed at best"
and I am biting my tongue with this responce I edited it and took out the many personal insults.

Respectfully 
Sami


----------



## Bill Lear

Kenpohermit said:
			
		

> To the "bright guy" who accused Mr. Parker of "stealing" I have 2 points I will say to you.
> 
> 
> 1. Up until you said that stuff about Mr. Parker there was a chance that someone might have been inclined to be mislead by your ignorant statements
> however after those comments you pretty much ended the chances of anyone with a brain being mislead by you, you should have kept from insulting the founder of the system your trying to pretend you know something about.
> 
> 2. Who do you think OWNS the principles of motion? Who do you think
> owns Kenpo that can say Mr. Parker stole it from them? That is the heart of the problem, you assume that Kenpo is owned by some traditional master, it is not. It is not owned by Chow nor by the Chinese nor by the Japanese. People who invent are often inspired by things that does not mean they are stealing specially when they make something better. In my opinion American Kenpo is an improvement on Chow's teachings. Making them better, easier to learn, understand and teach... I would say your statement is "uninformed at best"
> and I am biting my tongue with this responce I edited it and took out the many personal insults.
> 
> Respectfully
> Sami



 :idunno:  :whip:  :asian:


----------



## Seig

Before this goes any further and I have to lock it and suspend anyone....

If it is ED PARKER'S American Kenpo, how can it be anyone else's?


----------



## Bill Lear

THANK YOU!!!
artyon:  artyon:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Uhhh, yeah. That pretty much sums it up, ey?

There was stuff in the brai of that man that surpassed what he learned from Chow. As Doc has pointed out on other threads, he also gleaned info from Ark Wong, the Sansoo crew, and other notables from the early days of the arts ni America. *Innovation and improvement are also forms of invention*. The innovative and inventive mind of Mr. Parker certainly borrowed from multiple informational sources, then did a bang-up job of providing a cohesive model for taking it to new territory. What good is inventing light bulbs without electricity?

Unless, of course, one only invents dim bulbs. But I digress. (Sorry, Gary...I'l try to stay focused).

Regards,

Dave


----------



## pete

Seig said:
			
		

> Before this goes any further and I have to lock it and suspend anyone....
> 
> If it is ED PARKER'S American Kenpo, how can it be anyone else's?


before this becomes a trend, i'll continue to use a standard size type set... you know, not compensating or anything...LOL

here is just a thought though... we kinda look at these trees from top down, and thereby would agree the top spot goes to mr parker... but...

what about looking from the bottom up... the roots of the tree... which would have to include chow, wong, wing-woo, etc.  

pete


----------



## Kenpodoc

pete said:
			
		

> before this becomes a trend, i'll continue to use a standard size type set... you know, not compensating or anything...LOL
> 
> here is just a thought though... we kinda look at these trees from top down, and thereby would agree the top spot goes to mr parker... but...
> 
> what about looking from the bottom up... the roots of the tree... which would have to include chow, wong, wing-woo, etc.
> 
> pete


Agreed, the tap root is prabably Chow.  I still wouldn't consider Chow in the lineage of EPAK. He is part of its history. It's all semantics and to me. not terribly important.

I do get ruffled when someone suggests that Parker stole his art.  He clearly credits Mr. Chow as his teacher and his initial inspiration.  In my experience Hawaian Kenpo is clearly different from EPAK. It is harder, more Okinawan in style.  I respect it, but it is clearly not EPAK.  Even if some of the techniques were borrowed from Mr.Chow they were changed and no longer the same art. The early movies of Mr. Parker and Mr. Sullivan clearly show only distant relationship to the later techniques.  They are superficially similar but different in many important ways.  

When I look at my lineage I consider Mr. Hatfield my teacher. He is a student of Mr. Wedlakes.  He had other instructors and he acknowleges those instructors but his primary influence is Mr. Wedlake.  Mr. Wedlake was a student of Mr. Parker. He also had other instructors and treats them with respect in his books. He inevitably reminds us that Mr. Parker changed the way he looked at martial arts and tries to teach us what he learned from Mr. Parker.  Mr. Parker, however was not trying to teach what he learned from Mr. Chow. He was trying to teach that conglomeration of information that he metamorphasized into a new art.  For that reason, I put him as the trunk of the EPAK tree (to borrow the metaphor.) He had roots but those roots are outside of the EPAK lineage.  

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. Maybe it's time to look up the word, "lineage."

2. "Good poets borrow. Great ones steal." Shakespeare was a great thief. It's all bricolage.

3. "All Mr. Parker did," was to take what was always already there in martial arts, organize it decently, and map out a rational system of teaching what he figured out. 

4. For some, this is commercialization; others call that democratization. Both are true.

5. I dunno, I'm more impressed by the man's intellectual achievement every time I train or teach.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Maybe it's time to look up the word, "lineage."QUOTE]
> 
> 1.  Summarized From Miriam Webster On-line:
> Main Entry: 1lin·e·age
> Pronunciation: 'li-nE-ij also 'li-nij
> Function: noun
> 1 descent in a line from a common progenitor
> 2 a group of individuals tracing descent from a common ancestor; especially : such a group of persons whose common ancestor is regarded as its founder
> 
> So, if you take definition 1, then Chow is in the lineage;  if you take definition 2, then Chow is not.
> 
> From which I conclude that this thread is incorrectly titled.  It is not about Chow or Parker (Or the Tracy's or Mitose or Juchnick or Emperado or any othe Kenpoist).  It is about the preferred definition of the word lineage.


----------



## Gin-Gin

Seig said:
			
		

> If it is ED PARKER'S American Kenpo, how can it be anyone else's?





			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> From which I conclude that this thread is incorrectly titled. It is not about Chow or Parker (Or the Tracy's or Mitose or Juchnick or Emperado or any othe Kenpoist). It is about the preferred definition of the word lineage.


----------



## Kenpodoc

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> rmcrobertson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Maybe it's time to look up the word, "lineage."QUOTE]
> 
> 1.  Summarized From Miriam Webster On-line:
> Main Entry: 1lin·e·age
> Pronunciation: 'li-nE-ij also 'li-nij
> Function: noun
> 1 descent in a line from a common progenitor
> 2 a group of individuals tracing descent from a common ancestor; especially : such a group of persons whose common ancestor is regarded as its founder
> 
> So, if you take definition 1, then Chow is in the lineage;  if you take definition 2, then Chow is not.
> 
> From which I conclude that this thread is incorrectly titled.  It is not about Chow or Parker (Or the Tracy's or Mitose or Juchnick or Emperado or any othe Kenpoist).  It is about the preferred definition of the word lineage.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Parker is both the progenitor and the founder of EPAK.  So by both definitions Chow is not in the Lineage of EPK.
> 
> Jeff
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Ed Parker is both the progenitor and the founder of EPAK.  So by both definitions Chow is not in the Lineage of EPK.
> 
> Jeff



From Miriam Webster online:
Main Entry: pro·gen·i·tor 
Pronunciation: prO-'je-n&-t&r, pr&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French progeniteur, from Latin progenitor, from progignere to beget, from pro- forth + gignere to beget -- more at KIN
1 a : an ancestor in the direct line : FOREFATHER b : a biologically ancestral form
2 : PRECURSOR, ORIGINATOR <progenitors of socialist ideas -- Times Literary Supplement> 

And
Main Entry: pre·cur·sor  
Pronunciation: pri-'k&r-s&r, 'prE-"
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English precursoure, from Latin praecursor, from praecurrere to run before, from prae- pre- + currere to run -- more at CURRENT
1 a : one that precedes and indicates the approach of another b : PREDECESSOR

And 
Main Entry: fore·fa·ther 
Pronunciation: -"fä-[th]&r, -"f[a']-
Function: noun
1 : ANCESTOR 1a
2 : a person of an earlier period and common heritage

I conclude that Chow is Parker's Progenitor, Predecessor and Precursor.  
Furthermore...if Parker is the "Father" of American Kenpo, then Chow is the "Forefather" which clearly puts him in the lineage of EPAK.


----------



## Seig

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> From Miriam Webster online:
> Main Entry: pro·gen·i·tor
> Pronunciation: prO-'je-n&-t&r, pr&-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French progeniteur, from Latin progenitor, from progignere to beget, from pro- forth + gignere to beget -- more at KIN
> 1 a : an ancestor in the direct line : FOREFATHER b : a biologically ancestral form
> 2 : PRECURSOR, ORIGINATOR <progenitors of socialist ideas -- Times Literary Supplement>
> 
> And
> Main Entry: pre·cur·sor
> Pronunciation: pri-'k&r-s&r, 'prE-"
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English precursoure, from Latin praecursor, from praecurrere to run before, from prae- pre- + currere to run -- more at CURRENT
> 1 a : one that precedes and indicates the approach of another b : PREDECESSOR
> 
> And
> Main Entry: fore·fa·ther
> Pronunciation: -"fä-[th]&r, -"f[a']-
> Function: noun
> 1 : ANCESTOR 1a
> 2 : a person of an earlier period and common heritage
> 
> I conclude that Chow is Parker's Progenitor, Predecessor and Precursor.
> Furthermore...if Parker is the "Father" of American Kenpo, then Chow is the "Forefather" which clearly puts him in the lineage of EPAK.


Then clearly, by this logic, Benjamin Franklin gets credit for the light bulb and the telephone. Sounds patently absurd, doesn't it? Chow is in the history of Ed Parker's American Kenpo, not the lineage. Ed Parker founded they system, not Chow. That's why it's not called Chow's American Kenpo.


----------



## dubljay

Seig said:
			
		

> Then clearly, by this logic, Benjamin Franklin gets credit for the light bulb and the telephone. Sounds patently absurd, doesn't it? Chow is in the history of Ed Parker's American Kenpo, not the lineage. Ed Parker founded they system, not Chow. That's why it's not called Chow's American Kenpo.


 Logic? who has a use for that antiquated ideal these days?

 Sorry for the sarcasim, I couldn't agree more Seig.


----------



## Doc

All of this stirred up from a troll who doesn't study any kind of kenpo, and who bounces (or gets bounced) from forum to forum getting his "attention" fix. Stop answering and maybe he'll go away.


----------



## KenpoTess

* Mod Note

This thread Died out long ago and time for new discussion on- --- EPAK~! 

Thread Closed


~Tess
-MT S Mod
*


----------

