Kenpo Jujitsu? Is this the original art of Kenpo?

[Twin Fist]

topic for another thread

 

[marlon]

or not...

 

[Twin Fist]

true that

 

[KenpoDave]

Kindly point me to where Chow, Parker, Emperado, and Doc, all bashed each other. We have one dubious "interview" with Chow where he spposedly says something negative about Parker. Chow never ran down Emperado at all. Emperado gave Parker an 8th degree and said he did great things for Kenpo. Parker never ran down Chow's or Emperado's abilities that I ever heard of. And Those guys never trashed Doc either that I know of. If he ever said anything negative about them, then I've never read it either.

You pointed out one of the things that Chow said already. I have talked to a few of Ed Parker's first generation guys that have told me some of the things he would privately say about Chow. He discouraged some of his students from attending Chow seminars when Chow was in the states. Chow and Parker were, at times, crossways with each other concerning Parker's success in the states, and things were said both directions. Chow promoted himself to 15th degree in response to Parker's promotion to 10th. I don't give much credence to the statements. People say what they say when they are trying to be top-dog.

I pointed it out because this bashing is certainly not new, and not limited.

There is a statement written by Emperado recognizing Thomas Mitose as the inheritor of his father's art, and in that statement, there is recognition of James Mitose as the 21st Grandmaster of his family art.

As for Doc, no, I don't recall anything he has written or said negatively about any of these men. But he often criticizes Ed Parker's commercial system, and that could certainly be considered bashing. It could certainly be inferred that way, whether Doc is implying so or not. Doc has been openly critical of some of Ed Parker's other black belts, which could be taken as an insult to the standards and judgement of Ed Parker. And refusing to acknowledge Emperado and Chow, both teachers of Parker, as being part of his lineage, could be inferred the same way.

Does Doc mean it that way? I don't know. Probably not. But you get my point. The reader brings his own perception to what he reads.

But again, the conversation has devolved to how terrible a martial artist Mitose was, yet, the martial art that most of us here consider to be rather superior, and most of the martial artists that we respect the most, are a direct result of his influence.

My question remains: Why is it so important to remove James Mitose from the history of kenpo?

All my instructors have shown me "kinnygarten stuff."

 

[KenpoDave]

Hello, Mr. Hopper...
Do you tend to practice the kata during private instruction classes and not in the regular "open group" classes?

Thank you,
Milt G.

Yes. Pieces of kata are drilled during the group classes. But the full, formal exercises are taught in private instruction and most of my students work them outside of class.

 

[KenpoDave]

actually, there is plenty of trash talking in Kenpo history.

mind you, it pretty much all comes from someone named tracy, and is about everyone NOT named tracy.......

Not true. MOST of the trash talking in kenpo history is on forums such as this, and is directed towards people named Tracy about things written between 10-12 years ago. Or Mitose.

 

[Twin Fist]

ok Dave, whatever you say

 

[yorkshirelad]

Doc has been openly critical of some of Ed Parker's other black belts, which could be taken as an insult to the standards and judgement of Ed Parker. And refusing to acknowledge Emperado and Chow, both teachers of Parker, as being part of his lineage, could be inferred the same way.

Doc may have been critical of some of Mr Parker's students, but his views of Mr Parker and his system have come from personal experience and seem to be devoid of hero worship. As far as I'm concerned, this is rather refreshing. Too many people tend to let their unbridled love get in the way of an unbiased perspective. This is one of the reasons that when Doc speaks, people listen.

As for Doc refusing to acknowledge Chow or Emperado as a part of his lineage, this is also somewhat understandable as Mr Parker's system became such that it did not resemble what Chow was doing. It became an art unto itself and because of this, it could be argued that th lineage began with Mr Parker.

As for bashing. It seems to me that the only bashing is on websites such as this.

 

[mwd0818]

Doc may have been critical of some of Mr Parker's students, but his views of Mr Parker and his system have come from personal experience and seem to be devoid of hero worship. As far as I'm concerned, this is rather refreshing. Too many people tend to let their unbridled love get in the way of an unbiased perspective. This is one of the reasons that when Doc speaks, people listen.

As for Doc refusing to acknowledge Chow or Emperado as a part of his lineage, this is also somewhat understandable as Mr Parker's system became such that it did not resemble what Chow was doing. It became an art unto itself and because of this, it could be argued that th lineage began with Mr Parker.

As for bashing. It seems to me that the only bashing is on websites such as this.

Two points - one, not surprising that Doc refuses to acknowledge Emperado in his lineage. From Mr. Bishop's interview with Mr. Emperado when he asked how well he knew Mr. Parker:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]EMPERADO: Before he started training with Professor Chow, Ed trained with me for about 2 weeks . . . [/FONT]

The rest of the interview can be found here. I've trained with a lot of people for a few weeks . . . wouldn't put them in my "lineage" either. As for Chow, can't comment.

Second, I'll give you that Doc can be rather abrasive. He doesn't really care what others think of him and says what he thinks. Anyone who does that is bound to piss some people off. However, I have yet to see any comment made from Doc that is actually going after anyone. If he sees something, he gives his opinion. You might not agree with it, but Doc at least will back up his opinion. I have yet to hear him say anything unfounded.

 

[Danjo]

You pointed out one of the things that Chow said already. I have talked to a few of Ed Parker's first generation guys that have told me some of the things he would privately say about Chow. He discouraged some of his students from attending Chow seminars when Chow was in the states. Chow and Parker were, at times, crossways with each other concerning Parker's success in the states, and things were said both directions. Chow promoted himself to 15th degree in response to Parker's promotion to 10th. I don't give much credence to the statements. People say what they say when they are trying to be top-dog.

What I pointed out was what one person said Chow said. For various reasons, I don't entirely trust that "interview". But even if it's true, he was "bashing" Parker for thinking that he was the "King of Kenpo" not saying his skill was inadequate.

I pointed it out because this bashing is certainly not new, and not limited.

It's not, but I still don't see where you showed us that these men all bashed each other.

There is a statement written by Emperado recognizing Thomas Mitose as the inheritor of his father's art, and in that statement, there is recognition of James Mitose as the 21st Grandmaster of his family art.

True. Where does it say that the art is any good, or that what Thomas teaches is the same thing that Emperado saw Mitose teach?

As for Doc, no, I don't recall anything he has written or said negatively about any of these men. But he often criticizes Ed Parker's commercial system, and that could certainly be considered bashing. It could certainly be inferred that way, whether Doc is implying so or not. Doc has been openly critical of some of Ed Parker's other black belts, which could be taken as an insult to the standards and judgement of Ed Parker. And refusing to acknowledge Emperado and Chow, both teachers of Parker, as being part of his lineage, could be inferred the same way.

It could only be taken as bashing if one chose to take it that way. Most people that are critical of EPAK are only familiar with the commercial system. That system didn't sum up what Parker was all about.

Does Doc mean it that way? I don't know. Probably not. But you get my point. The reader brings his own perception to what he reads.

So now you're saying that if the reader believes that Doc or whomever was bashing someone, then they were?

But again, the conversation has devolved to how terrible a martial artist Mitose was, yet, the martial art that most of us here consider to be rather superior, and most of the martial artists that we respect the most, are a direct result of his influence.

Never said he was "terrible", but rather very basic in what he taught compared to what's taught now a days. He was the acorn to the mighty oak tree.

My question remains: Why is it so important to remove James Mitose from the history of kenpo?

All my instructors have shown me "kinnygarten stuff."

We all learned basic stuff. It wasn't all we learned though. But apparently that's all Mitose showed Chow, Emperado, Parker and Chapel.

I don't care if someone has him in their lineage or not. One might argue why your family tree doesn't have Mitose's Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather on it since he was the supposed founder of Mitose's system. We all draw the line where we think it matters.

 

[miguksaram]

Hello,

First I would like to thank you all. All this time I thought TKD forums was the only place where bickering over who is what and which is the real way existed. Luckily there is Kempo/Kenpo too.

I'm just throwing in some obvious points here, but I didn't see them mentioned, or perhaps glazed over them. First Kempo/Kenpo is the same word. The most correct way of spelling it would Kenpo based on the kanji or so I was told by my Japanese friend. Secondly don't we have to take in consideration that Chow also learned chuan'fa from his family as well as Kenpo form Mitose. This would be a good reason for the difference of what Mitose taught and what was being taught by Chow.

It was my understanding (note: not stating this as fact, just an understanding) that Mitose studied under Motobu hence, as well as learned his own family art of Jujitsu. From what I heard, Motobu was an uncle of his. Of course this may just be a family friend who he called uncle or it was his senior, it may not have been an actual blood relative. Can anyone eloborate on this?

Finally, while character does play a role in the making of a martial artist, what one might do on the outside world doesn't necessarily mean they do the same with their martial arts. Mitose may have been a crook in regular life but his martial arts may have been good regardless of his character.

 

[Danjo]

Hello,

First I would like to thank you all. All this time I thought TKD forums was the only place where bickering over who is what and which is the real way existed. Luckily there is Kempo/Kenpo too.

I'm just throwing in some obvious points here, but I didn't see them mentioned, or perhaps glazed over them. First Kempo/Kenpo is the same word. The most correct way of spelling it would Kenpo based on the kanji or so I was told by my Japanese friend. Secondly don't we have to take in consideration that Chow also learned chuan'fa from his family as well as Kenpo form Mitose. This would be a good reason for the difference of what Mitose taught and what was being taught by Chow.

It was my understanding (note: not stating this as fact, just an understanding) that Mitose studied under Motobu hence, as well as learned his own family art of Jujitsu. From what I heard, Motobu was an uncle of his. Of course this may just be a family friend who he called uncle or it was his senior, it may not have been an actual blood relative. Can anyone eloborate on this?

Finally, while character does play a role in the making of a martial artist, what one might do on the outside world doesn't necessarily mean they do the same with their martial arts. Mitose may have been a crook in regular life but his martial arts may have been good regardless of his character.

The Motobu connection is spurious according to Chosei Motobu who says that Mitose neither trained with his father, nor was he related to him. Most likely the connection is far more mundane. Mitose plagiarized huge portions of Motobu's book to make his own (including actual photographs from it). Motobu's book came to Hawaii in the 1930's and Mitose likely bought a copy of it then. Mitose also only taught the Nihanchi Shodan kata, which was also the only kata shown in Motobu's book. Motobu taught other kata (Nihanchi nidan and sandan as well as Bassai and one he made up called the Bear Kata) but they were not in his book, so Mitose had no way of learning them.

P.S.

There's also no real good answer to the question of why would a Japanese Kenpo system that had been handed down from one generation to the next for 20 generations use an Okinawan kata as it's only taught form?

 

[miguksaram]

The Motobu connection is spurious according to Chosei Motobu who says that Mitose neither trained with his father, nor was he related to him. Most likely the connection is far more mundane. Mitose plagiarized huge portions of Motobu's book to make his own (including actual photographs from it). Motobu's book came to Hawaii in the 1930's and Mitose likely bought a copy of it then. Mitose also only taught the Nihanchi Shodan kata, which was also the only kata shown in Motobu's book. Motobu taught other kata (Nihanchi nidan and sandan as well as Bassai and one he made up called the Bear Kata) but they were not in his book, so Mitose had no way of learning them.

P.S.

There's also no real good answer to the question of why would a Japanese Kenpo system that had been handed down from one generation to the next for 20 generations use an Okinawan kata as it's only taught form?

Thanks Danjo. I haven't been involved in Kenpo for a long time. My Kenpo lineage stems from Juchnik's Kempo (yes I know, another controversial person in Kenpo. So before anyone goes off on one of those fun tagents that people like to start about him, let me just say, I really don't give a crap what you think of the man. I like what he teaches.) Anyways, these were some of the things I have heard so any outside perspective is good to know.

 

[Danjo]

Thanks Danjo. I haven't been involved in Kenpo for a long time. My Kenpo lineage stems from Juchnik's Kempo (yes I know, another controversial person in Kenpo. So before anyone goes off on one of those fun tagents that people like to start about him, let me just say, I really don't give a crap what you think of the man. I like what he teaches.) Anyways, these were some of the things I have heard so any outside perspective is good to know.

Don't worry. Just search through the various threads to find out what others think about about Juchnik and others.

One has to seperate out a man from his talents. If you like what he teaches, then enjoy it and train hard.

 

[miguksaram]

Don't worry. Just search through the various threads to find out what others think about about Juchnik and others.

One has to seperate out a man from his talents. If you like what he teaches, then enjoy it and train hard.

Agreed. I am actually training in Shorei-ryu Karate under Sensei John Sharkey now. I left the Kenpo scene some time ago. My main instructor for it was Sensei Jon Ludwig and I trained with Juchnik when he would come in for seminars.

 

[KenpoDave]

It could only be taken as bashing if one chose to take it that way. Most people that are critical of EPAK are only familiar with the commercial system. That system didn't sum up what Parker was all about.

So now you're saying that if the reader believes that Doc or whomever was bashing someone, then they were?

Thank you, Dan. These two statements were the point that I hoped one would get from my post. I used Doc because his love of and loyalty to Ed Parker are unquestionable. Yet, he is often critical of Ed Parker's commercial system or "motion kenpo" and therefore critical of those who teach it/practice it. So, is "bashing" Ed Parker's creation and those he elevated to positions of leadership the same as bashing Ed Parker?

Will Tracy, in his articles that everyone loves to bash but rarely actually read, is very critical of the shape that modern day kenpo and its proponents have taken. In this respect, he and Doc are very often on the same page. Is "bashing" Ed Parker's creation and those he elevated to positions of leadership the same as bashing Ed Parker?

So, yes, Dan, whether or not bashing is actually going on most often boils down to the perception of the reader, and more than that, the perception the reader has of the writer rather than what the writer actually writes.

As for bashing Ed Parker personally, Will's articles are written based on his personal experiences of a man that he called friend for many years, but not "teacher." His memories are more often of Ed Parker off the mat rather than on, because that was not the nature of their relationship. But more than anything, his recollection of the things that Ed Parker said or did, or of the timeline of certain events, calls into question the "facts" upon which many of the current leaders of American Kenpo have built their kingdoms upon.

I don't care if someone has him in their lineage or not. One might argue why your family tree doesn't have Mitose's Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather on it since he was the supposed founder of Mitose's system. We all draw the line where we think it matters.

That is an interesting point. My family tree (not my kenpo tree) traces back and ends at Caesar Augustus. I, since I was about 12, always wondered why we didn't go ahead and throw Julius on there since he was the most famous Caesar. It's sort of like all those people who have an "Indian Princess" in their ancestry. Well, her dad was a Chief! So, lines are drawn, I guess, at points of convenience. I include Mitose, and by default, all of his teachers and their teachers.

My question is to why it is so important to remove James Mitose from kenpo history. And, if it is so important to separate the man from his talents, why is it that his trial and conviction make him so unpalatable as a kenpo practitioner? After all, everything that is the Oak is contained in the Acorn.

 

[Danjo]

Thank you, Dan. These two statements were the point that I hoped one would get from my post. I used Doc because his love of and loyalty to Ed Parker are unquestionable. Yet, he is often critical of Ed Parker's commercial system or "motion kenpo" and therefore critical of those who teach it/practice it. So, is "bashing" Ed Parker's creation and those he elevated to positions of leadership the same as bashing Ed Parker?

Will Tracy, in his articles that everyone loves to bash but rarely actually read, is very critical of the shape that modern day kenpo and its proponents have taken. In this respect, he and Doc are very often on the same page. Is "bashing" Ed Parker's creation and those he elevated to positions of leadership the same as bashing Ed Parker?

So, yes, Dan, whether or not bashing is actually going on most often boils down to the perception of the reader, and more than that, the perception the reader has of the writer rather than what the writer actually writes.

As for bashing Ed Parker personally, Will's articles are written based on his personal experiences of a man that he called friend for many years, but not "teacher." His memories are more often of Ed Parker off the mat rather than on, because that was not the nature of their relationship. But more than anything, his recollection of the things that Ed Parker said or did, or of the timeline of certain events, calls into question the "facts" upon which many of the current leaders of American Kenpo have built their kingdoms upon.



That is an interesting point. My family tree (not my kenpo tree) traces back and ends at Caesar Augustus. I, since I was about 12, always wondered why we didn't go ahead and throw Julius on there since he was the most famous Caesar. It's sort of like all those people who have an "Indian Princess" in their ancestry. Well, her dad was a Chief! So, lines are drawn, I guess, at points of convenience. I include Mitose, and by default, all of his teachers and their teachers.

My question is to why it is so important to remove James Mitose from kenpo history. And, if it is so important to separate the man from his talents, why is it that his trial and conviction make him so unpalatable as a kenpo practitioner? After all, everything that is the Oak is contained in the Acorn.

Well, there are those like Mills Crenshaw who openly denounce much of what Will Tracy has written (Mills was there).

As to leaving Mitose in one's lineage, I would guess that would depend on the person. I don't really care about leaving him in one way or the other.

The Acorn might contain the DNA of the oak in it, but it isn't a big tree, it's just a small nut.

 

[celtic_crippler]

In my experience the differences are as much in the art itself as it is about ego and money. The art often takes a back seat and that's unacceptable to me and saddening as many of those who perpetuate the "division" have much they could offer.

 

[mwd0818]

The Acorn might contain the DNA of the oak in it, but it isn't a big tree, it's just a small nut.

Mitose = small nut

Got it - thanks Dan!

 

[Milt G.]

There's also no real good answer to the question of why would a Japanese Kenpo system that had been handed down from one generation to the next for 20 generations use an Okinawan kata as it's only taught form?

Hello,
Many of the kata practiced today in Japan were originally Okinawan, or from Okinawa.
I was told that Okinawa was the "way station" for the martial arts from China to Japan, in many cases.
It was also a perfecture of Japan, I believe? Therefore the kata were basically considered Japanese anyway.

And I agree... There is no real agreement as to Motobu's influence on early Kenpo. Could have been just "creative" name dropping, as is quite prevalent today.

Thanks,
Milt G.