Talk:American Kenpo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Hawaii Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article American Kenpo, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.)

Contents

[edit] What's with all the vandalism?

I just came across this article by chance and I don't know anything about the subject, but it seems a lot of people have problems with it. If that is the case, you should actually contribute a "criticism" section or something, and not just childishly vandalize the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mycroft7 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

American Kenpo is a system of Martial Arts.

The founder of the American Kenpo system is Edmund K. Parker. He is also credited for the founding of the EPAK system which are the first letters of his name and American Kenpo. He learned his Martial Arts from an Instructor in the Hawaiian Islands. His name was William Chow. Professor Chow was the main force regarding the the Kenpo that was to be known as American Kenpo.

Professor Chow never called his art "American Kenpo", his art later came to be known as Kara-Ho Kempo[1]. (with an 'M') The current Grandmaster of Karaho is Sam Alama Kuoha. Kara-Ho Kempo is markedly different from Ed Parker's American Kenpo Karate (also known as EPAK). EPAK is largely the brainchild of Ed Parker and resembles little of what Profesor Chow taught.

[edit] polynesians aren't Chinese

"some Chinese instructors were “secretive” about their methodologies, and rarely taught non-Chinese. As a native Polynesian, however, Parker was embraced by many of the available Chinese Masters" This bit doesn't really make much sense. Polynesians aren't Chinese. Maybe we should say that they rarely taught non-Asians?

[edit] NPOV and style

Needs some work to be NPOV. The "motion" references are all straight from SL4 terminology, and could be considered to be somewhat biased, however true they may be. The excessive use of quote marks (common to much Kenpo writing) need toning down, and the prose needs loosening up a little and making accessible to non-Kenpo people.

--82.33.53.68 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done a little to make it less biased. Still needs extensive cites, particularly for the criticism of "motion kenpo".

--82.33.53.68 27 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Belts

http://kenpo-texas.com/beltrankingsys.html there is no red belt

http://www.depalmaskarate.com/index.cfm?page=12 It varies by school. And sign your comments please. --WildKard84 04:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Ed Parker's belts were the ones listed above. Do not take the belts out. BJJ has belt rankings. Kenpo will too. - HorrorFiend138
Perhaps we should adopt the approach Kevin Kuliga used in his article on this subject for the Chinese Karate Federation. He described the system Grandmaster Parker used, and then mentioned briefly the reasons why some schools use different belt colors for the degrees of brown belt. We could accomplish this with the addition of a single sentence or two to the existing description. We owe it to Wikipedia readers to be more complete on this subject, in my opinion. - Syberghost 13:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ed Parker's Background

While I understand that Ed Parker Sr. is the Senior Grand Master of American Kenpo, I think his background information should be limited to the Wikipedia entry about him. It's OK to include a little, but let's try to keep the American Kenpo page a description of the art and not of Mr. Parker.

Charleca 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Students

I can understand why some of these people (e.g. Elvis Presley, Jeff Speakman) are listed as notable students of Mr. Parker, but why are the others there?

Charleca 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm taking out most of the "notable students." Please discuss here before adding more. It looks like people are just adding their own instructors to the list (and advertising some web sites). Just because they are an instructor and trained under Mr. Parker doesn't make them notable.

Charleca 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think practitioners like Trejo, Planas, Kelley, La Tourrette, etc. should have remained. They're not movie stars, but in the American Kenpo community, they're notable. JN322 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur...but then the list grows as every passerby adds his or her instructor (out of alphabetical error and redlinked). Linking to a list of Kenpo instructors might be preferable. By the way, the stuff about Speakman and Presley is well-known and well-attested...does it really need an inline reference here? JJL 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we add Blake Edwards as a "well-known" student? Mr. Parker mentions him in Infinite Insights into Kenpo: Mental Stimulation. Charleca 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Blake Edwards continues to practice American Kenpo (I could be wrong), whereas Jeff Speakman does and Elvis trained until his death. Trejo, Planas, Kelley, La Tourrette, and Tatum are big names in the Kenpo community and should have remained. I added inline references for Jeff Speakman and Elvis, although I agree that they aren't really needed. However, a style is a style and should be adhered to. PhillipAlexHaddox 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting those gentlemen on the list...as long as we can say WHY they are there.
Charleca 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of the "notable students" some users continue to add to the list. Please add comments under each name as to why we should or shouldn't include them in the list. I think it would be a good idea to include the whys in the article. We can discuss new additions outside of this list.

  • Rick Hughes
  • Dave Hebler
  • Willy Steele
  • Bryan Hawkins
  • Howard Silva
  • Jack Autry
  • Dennis Conatser
  • Albert Cornejo
  • Paul Dye
  • Al Tracy
  • Frank Trejo
  • John La Tourrette
He's a 10th degree, and has written a LOT of books. The guy's been selling tapes on striking faster for so long that his material has been adopted by pretty much everyone. He had an article, but it got deleted a long time ago. See my recommendation below for what to do about the kenpo bigwigs. JN322 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mike Pick
  • Dennis Nackord
  • Richard "Huk" Planas
  • Graham Lelliott
  • Larry Tatum
Add. Named as key protégé by Ed Parker (see detailed comment below) -- PhillipAlexHaddox 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Eric Harter
8th degree black belt, trained by Ed Parker, and teaches American Kenpo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.133.30.222 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Mohamad Tabatabai
  • Chuck Sullivan

--Charleca 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A rule of thumb that has solved similar questions of notability on other pages is 'Do they have their own article?' If so then any questions on notability can be taken there, if not their not notable!.not always appropriate but a very good place to start. --Nate1481 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. If they have a Wiki article written about them, let's include them.
--Charleca 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In a Black Belt Magazine article, July 1979, page 27, Sr. Grand Master Parker listed the following people as his protégés. He called them "insiders with whom he has shared the full scope of his knowledge." Those people were Larry Tatum (selected as "key protégé"), Tom Kelly and Joe Palanzo. These gentlemen should definitely be placed back on the list. -- PhillipAlexHaddox 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what about a separate article "Notable American Kenpoists" (which we could link to at the bottom of this article), where we can give descriptions about these people. That way we don't have to make the AK article too long. And just some periodic checking to keep "Bob that green belt I know" off the list. :) JN322 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that, it provides a place for info on individuals not notable enough for their own article but of some interest, and saves arguments as a brief description of why they are notable in kenpo cycles --Nate1481 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also fine with this. But then we would still have the same problem of some joe coming by and adding his own instructor. I would much rather see a list of notable students of Kenpo (not just Mr. Parker's direct students) with a short description of WHY they are notable in this article. I also think that just because they are an 8th degree black belt doesn't make them notable either. So far it looks like Larry Tatum may be "qualified" to be on this list.--Charleca 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE THAT THE LIST NOW SAYS OTHER STUDENT OF ED PARKER, NOT NOTABLE STUDENTS. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE TRAINED BY ED PARKER AND CARED GREATLY FOR HIM AND HIS TEACHING. PEOPLE WHO STILL FOLLOW HIS TEACHINGS AND PASS THEM ON TO OTHERS WHO WISH TO BE TOUGHT HIS BELOVED ART OF SELF-DEFENCE, AND FOR THAT ALONE THE SHOULD REMAIN ON THE LIST. GRANTED THEY MAY NOT BE HIGHLY NOTABLE BUT THEY DO DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THERE DEVOTION TO ED PARKER AND AMERICAN KENPO.
Wikipedia is not for testimonials of good students, it's an encyclopaedia, so to be worth including they need to be of interest to a lay reader not just listed as a pat on the back i.e. notable --Nate1481 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


A list makes sense. Only those worthy of their own entry here should be listed. JJL 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why I figured with a little help on the part of the contributors do keep up with some checks on it, it could work. JN322 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed how hard is it to have an extra page on your watch list... --Nate1481 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I have made my comment(the one you can't seem to read)but what good does it do when you seem to think you own this topic and refuse to accept addition yourself, I have made a valid point if you dont want it in the American Kenpo topic then add a new topic and move all the names there, either way they do deserve (all of them) to remain named remember as it has been pointed out you do not own this page it is for everyone I'll give it a day for you to figure it out then I will make the changes if you don't. jedidave4212:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
jedidave42, I don't think anyone here is opposed to adding these individuals as long as we can provide a reason WHY they are on the list. Things will go a lot more smoothly if we discuss those reason here before adding them. We just want to make sure people aren't just adding some Mr. Joe Instructor (or even themselves) just because they have a black belt or they take a class with them. I do not want to see an edit war going on here. Please cooperate with us and discuss here before adding any more and please stop with the personal attacks (assuming that you are 71.133.30.222 - if you are not, I apologize). -- Charleca 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System style etc.

If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#The_words_style.2C_system.2C_school_and_organization it addresses this --Nate 13:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at how style is used at, e.g., Karate and Kung Fu (which have lists of styles that are named arts like Goju Ryu, not personal expressions), it looks like people are taking this line from the Martial Arts Project to heart: "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them." I think it's best to revert it back so it's consistent with actual practice and common use of language, not the idiosyncratic use of the terms within Kenpo. JJL 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just my POV but the Goju Ryu article seems to back this up, it's a specific way of doing Karate, i.e. a style of the system of karate. (Art & System seem to be synonyms in this case) But the debate is; Is this a specific way of doing Kenpo, or is it a separate system which just shares a name. I have never trained in any Kenpo so don't know which but I'm assuming the latter from what I've read, he says it's taken stuff from other arts, so it it would be a hybrid art but using an old name. --Nate 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are certainly variants of it like Tracy's Kenpo for example. I'm looking at entries like Styles of Chinese martial arts that use style in the usual manner--a specific martial art, not an individual human's interpretation of it. Two people who both practice Okinawan Goju-Ryu Karate-Do Shobukan both practice the same style of martial art, even if they do so with characteristic flair. I think this is the everyday usage of the term. JJL 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it was decided on as a convention for wiki, (Then the world! ) so unless there is an active objection, i.e. the practitioner or someone else involved directly then we might as well stick to that, won't change again but it was worth discussing. --Nate 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As a practitioner, I really prefer the term "system" - but I know this isn't MY article. If you want to be super-correct, we would say that it is the American style of the Kenpo system. - Charleca 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] spelling

American Kenpo is separate from Kempo. -Charleca 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, as I said, not up on the differences, I understand there difference and origin are a matter of debate, Kempo redirects to Kenpo so didn't differentiate, but what your saying supports the fact that it is a system not a style, regardless of merits --Nate 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The spelling of "Kempo" or "Kenpo" is a matter of transliterating from Japanese. In Japanese the art is called ケンポ, with no ambiguity, where the symbols given represent the characters for ke-n-po respectively. Now, when spoken, as the "p" is a labial consonant, this labializes the "n" into an "m", and thus it is properly pronouced /kempo/, regardless of any spelling choices. When transliterating from Japanese, there are typically two separate sides on how to transliterate the "n" character when followed by a consonant, as it indicates primarily nasality, and not a specific place of articulation. The closer you get to the formal transliteration style of the Japanese government, the more likely you are to see the "n" always transliterated as an "n", while the more traditional you get in the transliteration will see it as "m" before p, and b, and "n" all other places (even though k, and g cause the "n" to be pronounced differently, there is no commonly and easily available Latin character for "ŋ", thus they use "n")
Now, all this is fine and good, if you want a traditional spelling go with "kempo" if you want a more official spelling go with "kenpo", however, in official spelling it is "jūjutu", not "jūjutsu", as you would likely expect. This is because the official transliteration rules state that since "tsu" is the natural Japanese pronunciation of "tu", that it is what should be used. Likewise the same is followed for "chi" => "ti", "shi" => "si", "fu" => "hu", "zu" => "du" or "zu" depending upon the work. ("tuduku" to continue, traditionally transliterated "tsuzuku") This makes it typically harder for foreign people to pronounce correctly, but makes it significantly easier to teach the system to native Japanese.
There really is no reason to consider the two spellings as separate, as they both are fair transliterations from the same word, and also they are both pronounced identically. --Puellanivis 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added seciton

Is this a direct quote? If so needs sourcing also possible copyvio needs a clean up before considering putting back & not in the header. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Parker Sr., founder of American Kenpo, in his Encyclopedia of Kenpo, says: Kenpo is "a modern term describing one of the more innovative systems of the Martial Arts which originally started in Hawaii, is heavily practiced in the Americas, and has now spread worldwide. KEN means fist and PO means law." The term stems from the Chinese "Kempo" which refers to all migrating Chinese Martial Arts outside of China. Mr. Parker brought Kenpo to the mainland from Hawaii and made "numerous contributions of innovative concepts and principles." Kenpo is a system of self defense based on logic and the scientific study of movement. By studying motion in all its nuances, Kenpo provides both maximum efficiency (no wasted time, movements, or energy) and maximum effectiveness (speed, power, focus). It offers "explosive action with minimum target exposure. It employs linear as well as circular moves, utilizing intermittent power when and where needed, interspersed with minor and major moves that flow with continuity. It is flexible in thought and action so as to blend with encounters as they occur."

[edit] childrens ranks

They haven't put in the way the system goes for juinors for the brown belts, since there's 5 brown belts for the juinors. Techo 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (i know because i'm a 4th degree brown juinor)

Mr. Parker created no Junior ranks and there were no Jr. Black Belts under Mr. Parker. Jr. ranks are the creation of subsequent practitioners, they are not standard in Parker Kenpo. You can read either Infinite Insights or the IKKA Instructor's manual to verify that. Vantelimus (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belt ranks

A recent modification to the article removed the mention of three degrees of Brown as not common enough among different schools. There is a philosophical question involved here. Should the article try to list different variations of belt structures or find some least common denominator for different belt systems? I think not. Mr. Parker created a system with three degrees of Brown. I think it is best to go with Mr. Parker's belt system as the baseline and add the caveat that belt systems can vary from school to school and organization to organization, especially since the Mr. Parker's death and the demise of the IKKA. Vantelimus (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many variations in different schools today. Let's stick with Parker's original plan. -Charleca (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)