Chow is in lineage of EPK????

[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