Prof.Chow and AK
- Thread starter marlon
- Start date
IWishToLearn
3rd Black Belt
Keep in mind Prof Chow taught whatever combinations he wanted to at the time, very few if any formal "techniques".
Doc
Senior Master
Based on comments from Mr. Parker, I would suggest that it would be virtually impossible to do any martial art interpretation without at least a percentage of crossover from another interpretation. There will always be commonalities in diverse activities when the goals are the same. You can find a reasonable percentage of commonalities between football, baseball, basketball, and tennis. Ask yourself the question; how much of a percentage does footwork and running play? I know you want specific techniques or stances or something, but that is not what Mr. Parker meant. The greatest thing Mr. Parker took from Chow is the idea of breaking "tradition" and "culture" mandates of other interpretations, and focusing strictly on self-defense. Mr. Parker always gave credit to Mr. Chow.
Doc
Senior Master
Cool.
Thank you, Marlon. I've had this discussion with so many people before, I made the mistake of assuming you had their perspective. My Apologies.
One thing is for sure is that Professor Chow was simply awesome!
Here are a couple of clips that are out there:
http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/professor_chow.aspx
http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/professor_chow.aspx
If I recall my sources correctly, the Tracy's report that he (Parker) had received his 3rd degree black belt from Chow...which seems long enough to also "get past the basics," but that's just me.
I wasn't there and I haven't had the pleasure of meeting either gentlemen to ask...although I have read the Blackbelt interview with Chow that seems to be the oft' quoted "Parker was just a purple belt..."
Doc
Senior Master
Apparently, Mr. Parker was around long enough to achieve at least black belt status under Kwai Sun Chow, which suggests he got beyond the "basics." However, he always gave William Chow the credit for the revolutionary and totally innovative approach he adopted and adapted as his own. The fact he refined that approach to a high level of sophistication, doesn't negate its acknowledged origin.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
ok, insert long ended rant about prof Chow's "statements" and actions over the years. Lord, he was a great martial artist, but man was he a flawed human being....
That said, you cant compare the two systems and see the differences since today's Kara Ho is NOTHING like what Chow taught to Parker, Emperaldo and the like in the 40's/50's
The Tracy's claim thier Kenpo system is what Ed Parker was teaching before he changed everything. That doesnt quite jive though, because we KNOW that Chow didnt have 720 or so "set" techniques
so, what was the 10%?
I would say it is what some would dismiss as "basics"
movement, angles, flow
what is, in reality the "core" of Kenpo, what sets it apart from the other styles.
IMO, YMMV
That said, you cant compare the two systems and see the differences since today's Kara Ho is NOTHING like what Chow taught to Parker, Emperaldo and the like in the 40's/50's
The Tracy's claim thier Kenpo system is what Ed Parker was teaching before he changed everything. That doesnt quite jive though, because we KNOW that Chow didnt have 720 or so "set" techniques
so, what was the 10%?
I would say it is what some would dismiss as "basics"
movement, angles, flow
what is, in reality the "core" of Kenpo, what sets it apart from the other styles.
IMO, YMMV
hongkongfooey
Black Belt
In my opinion the 10% quote refers to doing away with the hundreds of variations to the base techniques. Especially, when the variation is just a weapon change. The 10% quote is now just a marketing tool. As in we have 90% more techniques in our system, so it is better. It really doesn't matter anyway. Many Kenpo schools today teach speed and flash over solid basics and powerful technique. It is what it is.
Similar threads
