K
Karazenpo
Guest
Doc said:Well I've made myself clear on this issue on many occasions in the forums so I won't rehash Mitose. However I will remind you what Parker's position was. SImply he didn't think Mitose was a good person and at best a very poor martial artist. Mitose showed up wearing his priest collar and cross, but rarely did anything. When he did, he taught the one kata he apparently was familiar with. Parker often said publicly, "Chow was an impressive fighter, Mitose never fought and was very unimpressive." Mitose later proved Parker's statements by coming to the Pasadena School on the mainland with an offer of a "church con" to Parker which Parker quickly declined. Then Mitose got on the mat to show some of us in attendance a "secret technique" where he proved just how unskilled he was.
The argument could be made that Mitose was a part of the Chow lineage even though Chow studied with many others. However Parker made it clear. "Mitose never taught me anything, and showed me nothing." Parker excluded Mitose from his personal lineage, and therefore I know for a certainty, he's not in mine. If you are in the Parker lineage, the fact Parker excluded him should be relevant to you. If you must, put him in the history of Chow's Kenpo, but my lineage stops with Edmund Kealoha Parker Sr.
Parker was a very special man who had skills before he met Chow, and would have gotten information from anywhere he could have found it in the martial arts rich islands to grow. However he always gave Chow the credit for the idea of the "direction" (practical self-defense) he wanted to take his art in, not for the physical anyway. And for those who talk about Mitose's books and the techniques, the knowledgeable know those books were "posed" and copied almost exactly from another source.
Hi Doc, hope all is well. Just a little friendly 'argument' here. I got the 'zing' you threw at me that 'the knowledgable know' in regards to the plagarism of Mitose's book. If you recall I am one of the 'knowledgable ones' that do know since you and I discussed this at length through e-mails and also for the fact Professor Kimo Ferrierra brought all the books in question to Hanshi Craig Seavey's dojo and we all examined them. I just wanted to clear that point up as I'm not talking through my hat. I grant you certain pictures of Okinawan masters were reproduced in Mitose's book. As far as techniques go, they most definitely appeared Okinawan in origin but the follow ups or finishing moves had a distinct Japanese Jui Jitsu flavor and this jui jitsu was emphasized in all the movements. It has been proven Mitose shared a dojo with Professor Henry S. Okazaki early on and I thought this may have been Okazaki's influence on Mitose. Experts of Danzan ryu have stated this jui jitsu does not bear resemblance to Danzan ryu. Okinawan experts have stated it doesn't bear resemblance to Torite, the Okinawan grappling art but may have came from Takenouchi Ryu the early jui jitsu of Japan (Circa. 1500's) that some historians say blended with the Chinese martial arts of the time. There is a current investigation taking place that I am privy to on in Hawaii and so far it is leading to the fact that Mitose studied Okinawan kempo ( I mentioned the instructor in my previous post and so did Sigung John Bishop), I currently don't recall his name off the top of my head but check back on our posts to confirm. It is believed this instructor is related to the Motobu lineage. Mitose's knowledge of Naihanchi and his connection to Okinawan kempo techniques seem to validate this research so far. My whole point being that where he got it or how he learned it is not my argument, my argument is that the 'rudiments' of this system is clearly evident as in the original core of Parker's system and all Hawaiian derived kempo and I pointed that out by reviewing Parker's book of 1960. Unless Parker took Okinawan karate extensively after leaving Chow then a reasonable man would have to draw the conclusion it was of Mitose/Chow origin. Research has also concluded that Mr. Parker taught essentially the same kempo taught to Chow by Mitose with some additions and modifications up to around 1961.
Now, remember, I am not a Mitose follower and I totally agree on his criminal background and dark side but I am simply searching for the truth and trying to be 'fair and balanced' to all sides. I have no alliegance to him other than the fact I still have to agree No Mitose, No Kempo as we know it today. As far as his abilities go, I have never seen him perform therefore unless a film is produced we must go by opinionated, subjective hearsay. This I can say for sure. In all due respect to Mr. Parker he 'flip-flooped' on his opinions of Mitose and I have proof of that. I'm home now and do not have access to the magazine which is at my school but for doubters I can get the volume, month and year of Black Belt magazine where Mr. Parker had a monthly column. In this issue he spoke very positively about Mitose, giving him much credit in the evolution of kempo and all his contributions which we reap the benefits today. Please don't shoot the messenger, which is me, lol, but it's in black and white in this article, read it before you pass judgement of whether I'm off base or not. Reason I say he did the 'John Kerry' flip flop is because I read Infinite Insights into Kenpo and other comments people have brought up after his death and their all negative. Why the turn around? Again, this is not my opinion but is in black and white, just research the article. I even posted an excerpt from it on the Kajukenbo Cafe a while ago when this topic came up. Secondly, when I was doing research on Mitose I asked my good friend, Professor Gerry Scott of Hawaii, a close friend of Sijo Adriano D. Emperado, founder of Kajukenbo who also promoterd Mr. Parker to 8th dan, if he could ask Sijo some questions for me. One was on the controversy of Mitose's skill and knowledge. He stated that Mitose had the abilities of a Master Instructor, that was also posted on the Kajukenbo Cafe by Professor Scott as a direct quote from Sijo. He also stated it was felt by the elders that Mitose's art had Okinawan origins.
Professor Chow having many teachers? I could be wrong and I'll stand corrected if so but outside of Mitose the only connection I could find and it was recently backed up from one of Professor Okazaki's students during that period was that Chow took Danzan ryu and had the highest respect for Professor Okazaki. No kung fu from his father or grandfather. I have not seen anyone else come forward that either they or their teachers taught Professor Chow. Not to mention, it would have been difficult for Chow to receive instruction from the Kung fu masters either in Hawaii or the west coast at that time since being half Chinese they would have been prejudiced towards him as they were the late Bruce Lee.
Lineage? Martial arts lineage was always based on 'family' and bloodlines in early times. Family trees of your own birth and martial arts trees do have parallels. Just think how ridiculous it would be to take your great grandfather out of your family lineage because either you never knew him or he never taught you anything and did nothing significant for you. Well, let me say this, if I could go back and manipulate time and have kept your great grandfather from ever meeting your great grandmother, would you be the same person you are today? No matter how anyone cuts it, Mitose taught Chow his version of a system called Kenpo and anyone Chow taught passes that lineage on undisputed and it doesn't matter if Mr. Parker never learned a thing from Mitosoe personally nor if he disliked him. C'ome on, I have never taken a lesson from Sijo Emperado but I am most definitely connected to him by this thing called 'lineage'. We can't pick and choose who will be our lineage either due to politics, in-house fighting, misunderstandings or something the man did morally that we detest no more than we can cut our great grandfather off the family tree for the same reasons. I don't understand why some argue the logic of this and although I respect you and your opinions and can't concur on this one. Respectfully & Sincerely, Professor Joe Shuras