[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:American Kenpo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early History

[edit]

The early history section is confusingly written. It starts by talking about immigration to the US, then goes back to talk about Ken Fat spreading in Asia, which makes the chronology of events confusing. Maybe someone with more subject knowledge could rearrange so it makes more chronological sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychopompConvention (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

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.

polynesians aren't Chinese

[edit]

"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? Professor Chow was not pure Chinese his mother was in fact Hawaiian. Ed Parker became friends with the first Chinese Gung Fu Expert to teach non-Chinese openly, Ark Wong and through exchanging information with him, it opened the door to others. By others I mean Lau Bun and his brotherhood.

NPOV and style

[edit]

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)

Belts

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ed Parker's Background

[edit]

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)[reply]

Notable Students

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - listed on Ed Parker's family tree with the most black belts promoted. Took over the KKAA when Parker formed the IKKA. Was the first to develop a business system for school owners. Pioneered videos and manuals. Headed the largest system of kenpo in the world for a number of years. Died in 2017 at the age of 81.
  • 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)[reply]
  • Mike Pick - the last student that Parker trained from white belt thru black belt.
  • Dennis Nackord

Grand Master Dennis Nackord, 10th Degree Black Belt. 50+ years of training and teaching and currently teaches from his home school in Wayne, PA. He has contributed to the opening of over 20 schools in his career and has promoted over 175 black belts.

He began his training in his birthplace of San Francisco in 1966 and credits four men as his teachers. Mr. Nackord states, "The founder of American karate, Ed Parker (deceased), uniquely taught an understanding of the principles and relationships of movement, expressing them in terms clear to his students. Eight-time world heavyweight karate champion and the first American kickboxer, Joe Lewis, teaches an understanding of strategies and attitudes of fighting learned only from his vast experience. World champion boxing trainer, Marty Feldman, teaches skills and realism found only in the art of boxing, and I consider him the best puncher I have ever seen. And, the internationally known person who first brought kickboxing to the United States and founder of the American Bando Association, Dr. Maung Gyi, teaches the true combative, healthful, and spiritual aspects of the martial arts possessed by few instructors today. Dr. Gyi is currently a mentor to many of the foremost martial artists in the world."

Mr. Nackord has studied American, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, and Okinawan forms of martial arts. In his teachings he emphasizes that the principles underlying a movement are far more important than from what form or style it comes. This is because proper principles run as a common thread throughout all good styles. "One must look for what is similar in styles to properly learn about movement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.213.168 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • Mohamad Tabatabai
  • Chuck Sullivan

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A list makes sense. Only those worthy of their own entry here should be listed. JJL 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed how hard is it to have an extra page on your watch list... --Nate1481 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Notable students of Ed Parker should be listed under Ed Parker's entry. This is supposed to be about Kenpo and the only reason Ed Parker is listed here, is because of his involvement in the shaping of Kenpo. I would like to see people listed here bringing important changes or influences to Kenpo. It's not appropriate to have a shopping list of notable black belts. Perhaps it would be useful from a research point to have high ranking black belts listed that one could further read up on. Final point being, the following sentence appears quite random "One of the best-known students of Ed Parker is Elvis Presley". Can someone change this if they are in agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.168.224 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about those who are still active in the community? Anyone want to help me write an article on Albert Cornejo? - Sparky (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

System style etc.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

spelling

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Puellanivis — you sound like you really know your linguistic x's and o's. Perhaps you can explain some of this in the Nomenclature section I added? --☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

added seciton

[edit]

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)[reply]

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."

childrens ranks

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Belt ranks

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]

There are two articles, both of which are small and require a fair amount of cleanup, that I think could be merged into one section in this article. Could someone check Dragon Kenpo and DragonKenpo and see if any of the material there can be included in this article? I don't think the text of these two articles combined would stand on their own. Livitup (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those two are notable. They should certainly be redirected here. There's little worth merging but something can be said. JJL (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is nothing in those articles worth merging into American Kenpo. The second of the two looks as though it is self-serving marketing literature for Dragon Kenpo. If every instructor who broke off from the Parker lineage and declared their personal interpretation a new style were added, this article would turn into an insignificant list of nobodies. American Kenpo itself might have been an insignificant offshoot from Prof. Chow if Parker hadn't continued to develop it and promote it worldwide. Only time will tell if Dragon Kenpo becomes something notable. Consequently I vote against merging them into this article. In fact, I think it would be better if both articles were deleted. Vantelimus (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone already nominated DragonKenpo and I just nominated Dragon Kenpo based on your feedback. Please follow the debates at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DragonKenpo and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon Kenpo if you are so inclined. Livitup (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove sources notice?

[edit]

Much of the American Kenpo article now has references cited for controversial facts. It is true that individuals involved in the creation and evolution of American Kenpo are cited, but these are the most reliable sources of information. It is unlikely any third-party source exists or will exist that could convincingly clear up the points of controversy or provide historical information that will be more authoritative than Mitose, Chow, Parker and Tracy. Indeed, it is likely that additional authoritative sources will only spawn more controversy. Since these sources sometimes disagree, the only responsible way to document the subject is to include the disputed points and reference the sources of the controversy.

How do other editors feel about dropping the sources notice at the top of the page? The policy notice itself says primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. For a subject like Kenpo, third-party sources will only repeat information passed on by primary sources. This is not science where we can find independent validation. Indeed, since the primary sources disagree, there is little chance a third-party source will do more than offer a non-authoritative opinion. So, while Wikipedia may have a general policy about the insufficiency of these sources, this is a particular instance in which these closely affiliated sources are the most appropriate and perhaps the only appropriate sources.

As an aside, in my own questioning of first-generation students of Parker about historical facts (including Messers Trejo, Wedlake, Planas, and Palanzo), there is much about the history of Kenpo that has never been and likely never will find its way into a written source. Vantelimus (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the way its written it isn't objective, never mind the sources issue. while sources of some sort could be found whether they are verifiable is a whole other thing. I would like to change the history more to be from a factual point of view but, I'm not sure even which direction it is supposed to go. RAHERIST (talk)

Albert Cornejo

[edit]

Albert Cornejo is still very active. He teaches a self defense class.

Bold structural changes

[edit]

Hi, all. I made some pretty bold structural changes to the article, in order to make it read in a more linearly accessible fashion. For instance, much of the content between "origins" and "evolution" was repetitive.

Also, there seemed to be a lot of naval-gazing in this article not in line with Wikipedia's style guide or other good example martial arts wiki pages. (And I'm saying this as a huge fan of naval-gazing and American Kenpo!)

I also added a note about kenpo/kempo Nomenclature (a common source of confusion) which could probably be clarified by someone more expert in linguistics and history of Japanese romanization.--☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Kenpo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Juchnik

[edit]

The fact that I do not see Bruce Juchnik's name mentioned in this article is quite disturbing. Do you not know who he is? If you are going to create a page on Wikipedia about American Kenpo it should have some reference to HANSHI BRUCE JUCHNIK!


Tracy J. Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy J. Scott (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Juchnik should probably have his own entry for his work in Kosho-Shorei Ryu Kenpo, and perhaps be linked off of James Mitose's entry. However, he is not notable within the American Kenpo community, particularly as a notable student of Ed Parker.

198.205.15.2 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Dave Hopper[reply]

Para. 1

[edit]

The first paragraph here seems to be favorable toward the martial art and not impartial as it should be. My opinion at least.

Pokeswap (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it about American Kenpo

[edit]

I removed several references that referred to “ignorance” or “ignorant people”. Not a good choice of words when discussing an art loved by so many.

For the Etymology and nomenclature section. While I believe understanding what kenpo means, I believe this is to detailed and more opinionated. Can be shorter and more to the historical point. Overall the section is a great idea and thanks to whoever put it together in the first place.

The history section should be about the history and lineage of American kenpo. To much detail into the personal lives of people in the section. People want to hear about the art. I also believe trying to ignore James Mitose doesn’t do the art justice. It is part of the lineage. Would be good if we could go back even farther. Again, don’t need more detail other than who the historical folks are. If people want to know more about mitose, chow or Parker, or even Tracy, they can go to their wiki pages

The features section is very well written, perhaps some bullets on sparing, freestyle and lock flow. I believe those with the basics and self defense technique training are what make the art a complete self defense system

I like the notable practitioner section. However I do not believe Bruce Lee was a practitioner. I could be wrong. I am a Big fan of Steve Wonderboy Thompson. However I believe he studies and teaches Okinawan Kempo, which has a different structure entirely.

Should we add a sister art section? Something that points to Kajukenbo


Just some thoughts 🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.37.197 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Etymology section definitely needs some citations and frankly, I consider it fatally flawed. As somebody familiar with the language and history, a lot of it just isn't true - trade with neighboring states definitely wasn't limited to Guangdong/Fujian and the idea that today's standard Mandarin is based on the Beijing dialect because the Communists hated the support they provided to the Nationalists is ludicrous. Exchange between China and Japan has been around for hundreds, thousands of years (e.g. Karate's etymology stems from the Tang Dynasty), the whole section is a personal rant out of which maybe 2, 3 sentences can be kept. 108.56.225.131 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You all are the biggest idiots iv ever seen!

[edit]

You all are the biggest idiots iv ever seen! What makes any of you qualified to decide on an post this "list"? The guys u cut from the list are the most well known 1st generation black belt kenpo instructors IN THE WORLD! The ones you talk about, except Speakman are practically unheard of. And also I've trained with Speakman in person several times and he's a self absorbed egotistical asshole! Wich s why he's been a 6th black since Parker died! You are incredibly dumb! Lol🙈🙉🙊 76.29.161.30 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Kenpo&oldid=1219553299"