Mitose

[Roland]

People are always saying that Chow studied with Mitose, and a lot of others always ask, 'why'?
Mr. Parker stated several times that Mitose had nothing to teach him.

Soooooooo, i was wondering, maybe, if it is possible that Chow went with Mitose for rank, or certification. A lot has been said about Chow's abilities, how much of a fighter he was, maybe he felt he needed to be "more legit" to actually teach publicly.
it might explain a lot.

No disrespect to Chow here, it was just a thought!

 

[Chiduce]

From what i understand, mitose sent his student to collect a debt owed to him. The debtor was also an accomplished martial artist as well. The student found the man at his home and confronted him. An arguement started which escalated into a fight. The student then defeated the man and left the scene with the guy still alive and beaten. The man's wife comes home later to find her husband dead. The student got, i think 3 years for the death and mitose got life! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Chiduce
From what i understand,The student then defeated the man and left the scene with the guy still alive and beaten. The man's wife comes home later to find her husband dead. Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

He (Terry Lee) defeated him alright! LOL....... sounds more like a HIT to me.

All I know is that I want nothing to do with these type of people anytime, anywhere, anyhow!

:asian:

 

[Sanxiawuyi]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

The History starts with Ed Parker. This goes for anyone who was ranked under Ed Parker....... (we in American Kenpo do Forms and Sets that Ed Parker created not Mitose or Chow) end of story! Period.

So, you think that no one under Chow, i.e. William Chun, is doing any techniques similar to American Kenpo? Mr. Parker created every technique, set and form. Very interesting.

No William Chow, no Westernized Kenpo (Tracy, Parker, Castro, Chun, etc....

Sanxiawuyi
The Kenpo Exchange

 

[Goldendragon7]

I said "That was developed under Ed Parker..... the History starts with Ed Parker. This goes for anyone who was ranked under Ed Parker....... (we in American Kenpo do Forms and Sets that Ed Parker created not Mitose or Chow) end of story! Period."

Show me where Chow or Mitose did Short/Long Form 1-8.....

Show me where they (Chow/Mitose) did any of the Sets we do today.....

Show me where they (Chow/Mitose) did the curriculums that we have today...32-23- or 16.....

Well......

Now don't get silly on me..... sure we all know that there are some similarities "generic basics and movements" that are as old as time........ and are seen in various different systems of the martial arts from the Chinese, Japanese, to Korean. Of course there are similar actions........ but nothing like what Ed Parker Put together as a WHOLE CURRICULUM!!

:asian:

 

[Big Guy]

Here: Here: Go Goldendragon7 Go! It's not there fault they may not know Parker Kenpo. Big Guy

 

[Kirk]

Taken from
http://www.kenpothoughts.com/display1.asp?func=display&resid=361&tree=2051

By 1982, Ed Parker had changed what he called American Kenpo, so much so as to make it in Parker’s own words, "no more than 10% Kenpo." It was around this time that the Tracy’s completely broke from Ed Parker.

Al Tracy’s Kenpo Karate remains to this day teaching "Original/Traditional" Kenpo as taught to him by Ed Parker.

Didn't you write this, Sanxiawuyi? I must be misunderstanding
your objection here, because it sounds like in this thread that
you're not crediting American Kenpo to Parker. Yet in the bio
that you wrote of Al Tracy (excerpt above) it sounds like you
are.

 

[Seig]

I think my head is going to explode.

 

[tonbo]

The way I see it, GD7 is right on. Doesn't it make sense that "Ed Parker's American Karate" would be.....uh.....Ed Parker's?

Okay, yes, SGM Parker was trained by Mr. Chow. That's in the record, no problem. And I am sure that some of that material was incorporated into EPAK. However, SGM Parker took what he knew, refined it, re-examined it, and did a lot of mixing and fixing. What came out over time was his own stuff, new enough to be different, while old enough to pay tribute to what came before. No, SGM Parker didn't invent new movements, but he did string some things together in new ways.

I think there are PLENTY of people doing movements and forms *similar* to Mr. Parker's Kenpo, and maybe even calling what they are doing "Kenpo". However, that is not EPAK.

Clear as mud, huh?

....and I *still* don't know what I don't know.....

Peace--

 

[Sanxiawuyi]

Wow! Do you guys attack like this in practice?!

Goldendragon7 stated

The History starts with Ed Parker

All I was saying was that is not quite true. Maybe “American” Kenpo history starts with Mr. Parker, but NOT the history of Westernized Kenpo.

If Mr. Parker had not met or studied under William Chow, there would be no EPAK, as you know it today. Period

I wonder what Mr. Parker himself would say?! As I know and have heard he gave a lot of credit to his teacher, Mr. Chow, as well as the teachers of San Francisco's China Town, i.e. James Woo, who helped develop the sets and actually created many of the forms that Goldendragon7 spoke of.

The history goes way beyond Mr. Parker, to think it doesn’t....

Yes [/B]Kirk[/B], I am crediting “American Kenpo” to Parker, as seen in the above threads, and in the bio you mentioned. But thanks for taking an interest in my stuff.

Do you guys hate everyone that is a little different or doesn’t think the same as you?

Sanxiawuyi

 

[Michael Billings]

... endless debates can continue regarding the Chow - Mitose relationship, however Mr. Parker's Kenpo was truely his. I did the old Tracy material for my 1st Black, but we had the numbered forms. Then switched over to Mr. Parker's Kenpo.

You can truely see the evolution of the techniques, where they started, and where they evolved to. Whether the old techniques or the new, the system structure was designed by Mr. Parker. To know his logic and the way he thought, which is actually what he tried to teach in seminars, not material, cannot attributed to anyone else (as Dennis would say, period.)

The Tracy's and other 1960's splinter Kenpo groups went their way, and Ed Parker continued on his journey, evolving into the most logical, comprehensive, systems of empty handed combat designed. Between the Seniors still alive, and the written articles and histories, I am not sure what there is left to "ferrit" out? The Journey was a nice way to answer some of the questions, but we need more, in writing, remembering that whoever are left are the ones writing history, not necessarily those who are making history.

Yours in Kenpo,
-Michael B.
UKS-Texas

 

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Sanxiawuyi
If Mr. Parker had not met or studied under William Chow, there would be no EPAK, as you know it today. Period
Do you guys hate everyone that is a little different or doesn’t think the same as you?

I think Chow gave Parker his basics. I agree that without Chow the art known as Ed Parker's Kenpo would not be here today. Having said that, what Ed Parker learned from Chow and what EPAK is today ARE NOTHING alike except the basics.

This being said Ed Parker could have learned his basics from anyone and created EPAK. (My opinion) He was just that kind of person from the people I have spoken with. He would have come out with it. Chow was the man who planted the seed but he had no idea what kind of tree would grow. I think the credit given to Chow is adequate. Let's not go overboard though. Parker became more than Chow ever could have dreamed. We're all only the sum of our experiences. That means that everyone we come in contact has some part in making us who we are and that is always changing. While it does mean that we would never become who we are without that contact it doesn't mean that the WHOLE sum of we are would never materialize without that contact.

I don't think these guys hate you. We've spoken on this issue before. You have this habit of stating things that you believe to be true but might be more on the side of might be true. The problem is that when you state these things as truths people will always disagree. It's probably better to put forth that in your studies, these are the things you think might have happened and this is the stance you take. Historians are supposed to be neutral.

You do a lot of research and you should be congratulated on it. However I would hasten to say that Parker Kenpo history might not be as easy to unfold as the rest of Asian Kenpo for a variety of reasons. Please be careful as the course you chart here will affect your credibility there DESPITE the hard work and effort you have made. I think it would be a shame to have that happen.

Again I think you do a lot of hard work and I KNOW what you are trying to say, it just doesn't always come out right. Perhaps however you need to hire me as your interpretor. Heh... I work on the cheap.

 

[Michael Billings]

Bravo, well said, and nuff said.
-Michael B.

 

[Michael Billings]

Obviously, since you are in Canada, you cannot be in a "state." I meant "Well stated!!!"
-MB

 

[Sanxiawuyi]

Originally posted by GouRonin

I don't think these guys hate you. We've spoken on this issue before. You have this habit of stating things that you believe to be true but might be more on the side of might be true. The problem is that when you state these things as truths people will always disagree. It's probably better to put forth that in your studies, these are the things you think might have happened and this is the stance you take. Historians are supposed to be neutral.

Thank you again for your compliments Gou, sincerely. (P.S. Go Leafs!!)

I am sorry for the way it comes of, but I was responding to post above which had statements printed as “truths”. I just wanted to show the other side of the coin.

I agree with you, people should just post “their” beliefs of what “may” be true. But I do think it’s ironic that I get attacked for showing another side, when there are people printing things as gospel truths, which are obviously just opinions. I guess some peoples opinions carry more reputability then others, .... depending which side of the fence you are on.

Sanxiawuyi




“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds” – Albert Einstein

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Sanxiawuyi
Wow! Do you guys attack like this in practice?! (1)

Goldendragon7 stated

All I was saying was that is not quite true. Maybe “American” Kenpo history starts with Mr. Parker, but NOT the history of Westernized Kenpo. (2)

If Mr. Parker had not met or studied under William Chow, there would be no EPAK, as you know it today. Period (3)

I wonder what Mr. Parker himself would say?! As I know and have heard he gave a lot of credit to his teacher, Mr. Chow, as well as the teachers of San Francisco's China Town, i.e. James Woo, who helped develop the sets and actually created many of the forms that Goldendragon7 spoke of.

The history goes way beyond Mr. Parker, to think it doesn’t....

Yes Kirk[/B], I am crediting “American Kenpo” to Parker, as seen in the above threads, and in the bio you mentioned. But thanks for taking an interest in my stuff.

Do you guys hate everyone that is a little different or doesn’t think the same as you?

Sanxiawuyi [/B]

1st Point.....
Who said "WE" are attacking......... WE are responding to statements and differences with you! If you call that an attack.. man you and I should work out......... You will feel the intensity!

2nd Point.........
Westernized Kenpo is your term "NOT OURS" ! I have no Idea what your definition of WK is nor do I care. Only that I am concerned with MY ART which STARTS with ED PARKER.... I do take offense to your blending of others and not credit where credit is due.

You are free to explore or comment on other BRANDS of what you call Kenpo as long as it has nothing to do with ED PARKER. If work that he did is somehow mixed up in your misunderstandings then I will speak out. What other students of Chow or anybody else does is fine with me. Just don't take things that Ed Parker did and claim that others have it as well. THAT'S ALL - PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

3rd Point........
You are correct...... If Mr. Parker had not met or studied under William Chow, there would be no EPAK, as you know it today. I totally agree......... so what's your point. This was not the focus of difference............ "PERIOD"

4th Point.....
Yes, Mr. Parker always gave his teacher credit for what he did, which was ....... "give him the keys" DUH (Old News Here) and I agree again that Ed Parker had input from others (not only who you listed but many others such as Tom Kelly, Huk Planas, Skip Hancock, Paul Mills, Myself and a host of others) SO WHAT! THIS IS STILL AFTER ED PARKER. No matter who did what...... Ed Parker was always the 1st, & Last to either insert or discard anything into "HIS SYSTEM" not Chows or anyone else's. PERIOD

5th Point.....
The History Prior to Ed Parker is sketchy to say the least and the most incomplete. After Ed Parker it is recorded and clear. What went on Prior other than generic basics is insignificant.

Final Point.....
I resent your attitude as to "HATE"! No one here has ever said we hated you or anything else along those lines just differences of opinion........ so take your "HATE" verbiage and pedal it somewhere else .......... we don't want to hear it.!~!!

The Truth no matter who it hurts is still the Truth.........


:asian:

 

[GouRonin]

Far be it from me to be the voice of reason but perhaps we should just sorta take a minute and go for a walk before we post here folks.

I know, I know. It WAS just me who said. I love the chaos as much as the next guy, if not more. But really you're both quite close to what each other is saying.

Saxawhatchamadooie is saying that Ed Parker had lots of influences in creating his art. Guys like Woo, Chow, Planas, Kelly and more. That without these guys where would the art be today? Goldenpoop is stating that he agrees but that the art of AMERICAN Kenpo is in the end the creation of Ed Parker. Like a CEO of a large corperation uses the people working for him to give him the info he needs to steer the corporation, Parker used the people around him to create his art.

So, you're both right. Parker was the catalyst that brought it all together for American Kenpo and as such can and should claim that his art was his creation. He did however have influences and that means that without those influences American Kenpo would not be what it is today.

This reminds me of the story of the 2 blind men touching the elephant in the dark. One says it's a tree as he feels the leg and the other thinks it's a length of hose as he touches the trunk. Only to discover when they look at the whole it's an elephant.

Now Sachawhackybooboo, no one is attacking you per say, just what you said. People often tread on reputations and as such some people often have their opinions taken with more credibility. It doesn't mean they are right any more than you are wrong until proven. You should talk with Goldeneye and get all sorts of info from him. It'd be a great way to fill in any blanks. Just remember though that the info you get is what he saw and knew. Be objective.

Goldenlizard, slow down there geronimo! The guy isn't attacking Parker's work. He saying that he had a lot of influence in making it. In fact he's also crediting Parker with being the lynchpin of Westernized Kenpo. The guy who made it all happen. But with him being attacked by everyone for the misunderstanding would kinda make anyone feel uncomfortable. Hate is probably the wrong word to use and I think you know that. Why not give him the info he seeks to help him build his own world view? Accept the fact that others may not agree with you but you have an important part to play in the Parker legacy. (Plus when you list three issues and respond with six it tells me you still can't count)

Now, if we can't all do that I'll just turn this message board around and we'll all go home, and no we can't stop so you can go to the bathroom. Besides, You should have gone before we left.

 

[Sanxiawuyi]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

1st Point.....Who said "WE" are attacking......... WE are responding to statements and differences with you!

I responded with my opinion, and suddenly, because I didn’t agree, I was criticized.

2nd Point.........
Westernized Kenpo is your term "NOT OURS" ! I have no Idea what your definition of WK is nor do I care.

Westernized Kenpo is not my term; it just means Western martial arts (i.e. American, Canadian, British, etc.) with Chinese influence. Very simple really, unless you think American Kenpo is the same as form of Okinawan Kenpo like Uechi-ryu?

3rd Point........
You are correct...... If Mr. Parker had not met or studied under William Chow, there would be no EPAK, as you know it today. I totally agree......... so what's your point. This was not the focus of difference............ "PERIOD"

I was just trying to say that “American Kenpo” started with Mr. Parker, with a lot of help. It would be like saying the history of karate started with Funakoshi! That would ridicules. Shotokan may have begun with Funakoshi, but not the history of karate. American kenpo may have begun with Mr. Parker, but the history of Kenpo. A student in Americanized Kenpo has roots that go beyond Mr. Parker, and there is nothing wrong with someone exploring their genealogy, is there?

4th Point.....
No matter who did what...... Ed Parker was always the 1st, & Last to either insert or discard anything into "HIS SYSTEM" not Chows or anyone else's. PERIOD

I don’t see your point?

5th Point.....
The History Prior to Ed Parker is sketchy to say the least and the most incomplete. After Ed Parker it is recorded and clear. What went on Prior other than generic basics is insignificant.

If you think the history before Ed Parker is “insignificant”, I don’t know what else to say. You honestly believe that Mr. Parker could have created American Kenpo without the input of Chow, Woo, Planas, etc.? If he had, it would look a lot deferent today.

And, if Parker American Kenpo is deferent and a complete creation of Mr. Parker, then why does it so many similarities to systems like:

Sam Kuoha’s Kara-ho, learnt from William Chow, or William Chun’s Go Shin Jitsu Kai Chinese Kempo System ?

You can obviously see the relationship.

Final Point.....
I resent your attitude as to "HATE"! No one here has ever said we hated you or anything else along those lines just differences of opinion........ so take your "HATE" verbiage and pedal it somewhere else .......... we don't want to hear it.!~!!

Sorry for using the word hate, it was too strong. What I meant was why is it if someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs they are automatically wrong and should be put in their place?

As Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along”? :rofl:

Let me finish by saying that have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker and I believe he was a martial genius, an innovator, I have never said anything negative about him, never.

Sanxiawuyi

 

[tonbo]

One big distinction I think that needs to be made is that we are talking about EPAK here.

As I have stated both in the forum and in private conversations with GD7, I study Kenpo; a version of Kenpo from someone who learned under SGM Parker. However, it has been altered somewhat, and as such is still Kenpo, but not EPAK. It has a LOT of similarities, since EPAK was its root, but it is somewhat "stopped" in the progression of EPAK. That continued on in one line, and our school's progression went on another line.

This seems to be quite common in karate--styles develop along similar lines, quite often.....often because people see what each other are doing and like it, so they "borrow" or do similar concepts. Asking why Kara-ho or other schools are "like" EPAK is somewhat like asking why you can find similar moves and philosophies in JKD and Wing Chun. Similar roots, similar techniques. But where they go from their "base" is what makes them different.

SGM Parker had no patent on moves, forms, etc. when he started out, and I don' t know that he does to this day (or his estate, anyway). Point is, roots may be similar, moves similar, forms similar, etc. But EPAK is EPAK, and is Ed Parker's......Kara-ho, etc. are not.

I've gone and opened my mouth where I don't know as much as many others here on the board. For what it's worth, I don't hate anyone voicing their opinion, and everyone is free to disagree and correct me where I am wrong.

In the meantime, I will side with Gou and say, "Okay, chill." I don't think there are personal attacks on this issue yet, and all this should be taken with a grain of salt. People's interpretations are different, and hey, guess what? All the interpretations are going to be right for those who proclaim them. Yeah, folks....it's an ELEPHANT, not a tree, not a hose.

Dang. Rambled again.

Peace (really!! :asian: )--

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Sanxiawuyi

Let me finish by saying that have the utmost respect for Mr. Parker and I believe he was a martial genius, an innovator, I have never said anything negative about him, never.
Sanxiawuyi

I guess the problem I'm having is that you seem to come across
(to me anyway) that Mitose should be in such a high high
reverance for the creation of EPAK. And it's not just you, it seems
(to me again) that a lot of Tracy Kenpoists want to give the true
credit to Mitose, and Mr Parker is just a blip on the lineage line!

Chow's influence was NOT solely Mitose, and Mr Parker's
influence was NOT solely Chow. If what Mr Parker provided
was only 10% Kenpo upon it's completion, then why credit Mitose
and Chow more than 10%?