*NEW* Moh Kempo Lineage Tree

My 2 Cents
Good Day All, I just wanted to chime in with my two cents regarding the list that Grasshopper is compiling. I am not about to engage in as to who should or shouldn’t be on the list. However, it is or should be common knowledge that an instructor’s sash doesn’t accredit you to anything other than having “taught” while being paid. As I’ve mentioned in the past there were some terrific instructors and some that merely pranced around with a black sash and superior attitude for six month and didn’t know a damn thing. On the other hand there were and still are many “student” 1st Degree Black Belts that have invested 10-15+ years to a style and have a good foundation to the style…which begs the question who would you rather learn from? Mat time is essentially important but it takes years to grasp any style on a deeper level, letting the knowledge ferment in ones head so to speak. An instructor that has worked for a year training each day (and no they don’t train 8 straight hours) can progress fast with good atheism but still needs the longevity to format major concepts progressing past singular techniques. In the same breath a student that only comes in twice a month but has been around for 15+ years has never spent the time on the mat needed towards a broader understanding either. Put that scenario into anything you want. For instance a plumber, carpenter, lawyer, or in my other business a cameraman. You can go to post secondary every day for two years and which acquire you a base to grow from but you still need the longevity and experience to become well skilled in your trade or profession. Same as you could build a fence once a year or shoot the occasional holiday video and this would never give you enough “tool time” to every really get very accustom to your bag of tools and their possibilities. By any definition on any list of the subject of Moh Pai/ Moh Kempo there are some notable names that are missing. All of these members have received their degrees (and Masters Degree) from Grandmaster Simon’s own hand and by that action clarify them in the same category to any other previous master. Master Duane Dulholke in Calgary was one of the very first PHS and awarded a 5th Degree Master title by GMS some years ago and has been in the system consistently since the late 1970’s. Master Bert Bazinet from Edmonton again awarded a 5th Degree from GMS. He has over 25 years in the system and leads the Edmonton membership. Master Bazinet has truly seen the best and worst that has happen and always maintained his consistency through out the decades. Master Alex Abossein from Seattle was given his 5th Degree last year by Grandmaster Simon. Currently heading up a club out of Seattle Master Abossein is also working on his third decade in the Moh Pai/ PHS Systems. Jeff Cooper nearing in on twenty years he has been a senior member in Calgary and has leaded classes of all levels. He holds a 3rd Degree belt and Apprentice Master Sash again from Grandmaster himself. …and last but certainly not least, Master Mike Kazakoff. Who you ask? Master Kazakoff is the Master that resides in Grand Forks and has personally learned since day one of his training from Grandmaster Simon himself. A personal friend of GMS, Master Kazaoff has quietly maintained a noted presence for over quarter century within the system. When ever it is thought that some technique may have gotten lost in translation he is the control sample as he has only received his knowledge from the source. Now most of you don’t know of him as he has never sought out notoriety and for years other “masters” have tried to keep him well away from the student population in the other cities and they never even mentioned him…mmmm…why would that be???? I only got to know the man because of my travels to Grand Forks. He is a true gentleman indeed. Actually, you have all seen him…yup that’s him working with GMS in the Total Self Defense book. I hope this helps with what ever list that is being tallied, also Grasshopper I have never heard the names that you mentioned referred to as having a “masters title” applied to them in my time. Feel free to give us a shout if needed (780-922-0052). I have received calls from all over North America now, even from a former instructor who is in Colorado and would like to take up his training again. Additionally, to Shannon Harrington, thanks for the call the other week and congrats on your tournament win again and thanks also for including us all on your list. Take care and enjoy the summer, here’s to training outside again! DJ

Hello Swanstrom, I am pleased, that you have decided to contribute to the “Tree”. Although, I am curious about some of the points that you posted here. First: You posted, “I am not about to engage in as to who should or shouldn’t be on the list.” Yet, you have added, “Masters Duane Dulholke, Bert Bazinet, Alex Abossein, Mike Kazakoff as well as Jeff Cooper”. And you have posted, “…also Grasshopper I have never heard the names that you mentioned referred to as having a “masters title” applied to them in my time.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn’t that contradicting yourself? (On the one hand you state you “won’t engage in who should or shouldn’t be on the list” and later you do exactly that.) Second: You state,” By any definition on any list of the subject of Moh Pai/ Moh Kempo there are some notable names that are missing.” (I do know that technically, this could be put into the first area but I deemed it important enough to be all by itself.) Uh…who would they be? Third: You posted about Master Kazakoff being “the control sample as he has only received his knowledge from the source.” Are you seriously alluding to the idea that Grandmaster Olaf Simon needs to have a “control sample”? Why on earth would he need to do that? Granted, between Sifu Shawn, Sifu Sblano, Grasshopper and myself, the forms change a lot. Yet none of us have any trouble recognizing what is being presented. I am not prepared to change the way I practise mine and I would not expect the others too, either. Fourth (and last): The art of Moh is rife with controversy and in my opinion, it always will be. One has only to read the “transcript” with Olaf Simon to realize he had to be a martial wiz to come up with or pass on, the art of Moh. Granted, there are many former students, teachers and long time practitioners who will no longer speak to each other or Olaf Simon. Yet we are certainly not alone in being a martial art that has its share of detractors. Why act as though this area is above reproach (or even questioning)? Personally, I don’t care what others think of me or what I practice (or post). I’m proud of my art, its controversial history and tough line of practitioners. As you have posted, “Take care and enjoy the summer…” Regards, MrE2Me2 Without prejudice E&OE

You posted about Master Kazakoff being “the control sample as he has only received his knowledge from the source.” Are you seriously alluding to the idea that Grandmaster Olaf Simon needs to have a “control sample”? I believe Swanstrom is alluding to the fact that TKF, not GMS ended up needing a control sample. There have been a fair amount of changes made to some of the forms and techniques over the last decade or so, especially accelerating between late nineties and 2005 due to all the ownership changes and the revolving door treatment of instructors. Some of it was unintentional, with details and fine points muddled, lost in translation, or "reenvented" by inexperienced instructors, and some of it, as sad as it sounds, removed or changed on purpose, in an attempt by some higher ranking individuals to hide the knowledge and retain an advantage over students and subordinate instructors. It was normal and frequent for the instructors to tell the students to either adopt their way of doing something or stick to what they have been taught originally, although often the "new" way became the "right" one and the students had to switch to it. Often each new instructor brought with them a new version of doing things, with some forms or techniques "changing" more than once a year toward the end. There have also been some significant differences between cities, especially those under different ownership. Master Kazakoff was not part of the TKF franchise and was not subject to all the dilution, omission, and changes the rest of the studios have experienced. Living in the same town and training directly with the Simons, he was also privy to some unique fine points. When the Alberta studios were in the process of rebuilding in 2005/2006, his knowledge was often used as "control" to sinchronize what we were doing. There was a lot of detail missing from the mainstream teaching process, and some of the forms had a siqnificant number of motions missing or "toned down" over the years because their appllications were considered too advanced by someone. Many of Kazakoff's details were tought here in the past -- 15, 20, 25 years ago, but a few things were not. His position uniquely allowed him to learn the art directly from the source and not be subject to all the changes and tainting the rest of the studios were subject to. That's why Swanstrom referred to him as "control" (imo).

Hello 92, Thank you for your explanation of “control sample”. Not having been with Temple in the later years, the statement made little sense to me. Regards, MrE2Me2

Hello, Both Swanstrom and 92 have refereed to Master Kazakoff as being a “control sample”. 92 explained this clearly but now that I have had a chance to ponder it, I have some more questions. If Master Kazakoff was not part of the TKF organization, then who did he train two-man stuff with? The Moh I learned was big on applications and other two-man techniques and drills. It seems to be that way when I post with members from other eras, as well. Also, the fact that he was a source control going back even 25 years has him starting in 1982. That doesn’t explain the differences in forms or techniques going back to the seventies or sixties. And with all due respect here (seriously), this one point about “control sample” still doesn’t address the other curiosities I brought up in my earlier post. Regards, MrE2Me2 Without prejudice E&OE

Hello, MrE2Me2 I should probably let Swanstrom speak for himself (and he probably will), and I will probably get a beating from him tomorrow, :) but I am in a writing mood and can probably address some of your other points as well (although I think you are being too picky about him contradicting himself -- yes, if you read it literally, he is, but you know what he means). About not arguing the list: there are a number of individuals he knows (including some current black belt students) that are more knowledgeable, skilled, and effective with the art then some of the individuals on the lineage tree. He is just pointing out that fact without going into arguing names and details. The names he refers to that are missing from the tree are the five names that he lists: J. Cooper as well as masters D. Duholke, B. Bazinet, A. Abossein, and M. Kazakoff. All of these individuals received their degrees from GMS, and have the knowleddge, skill, and experience to back them up. These names do belong on the tree alongside the masters and master-candidates already there. The rank and experience of these individuals sets them apart from those he is not arguing about in the previous point. that's why he says they belong on the list by any definition -- there is nothing to argue about. I can also concur that some of the earlier names listed as masters on the tree I have not heard of at all, or have not heard of them being referred to as masters. It does not mean that they don't exist or aren't necessarily masters -- they might very well be, it just points out the fact that not everyone has heard of them. There seems to be an information disconnect between the earlier years of of SKS and the later years of TKF. Grasshopper is trying to piece this toghether from different sources in different localities and eras, and obviously there are gaps in everyone's info, with some of it possibly being controversial or not entirely accurate. Not much can be done about that.

If Master Kazakoff was not part of the TKF organization, then who did he train two-man stuff with? The Moh I learned was big on applications and other two-man techniques and drills. It seems to be that way when I post with members from other eras, as well. Also, the fact that he was a source control going back even 25 years has him starting in 1982. That doesn’t explain the differences in forms or techniques going back to the seventies or sixties. Kazakoff is a personal friend of GMS. He runs an amature club in Grand Forks. I am sure there were people he could train with. The point is, the club was not part of the TKF franchise system -- no other master owned it, set rules, or changed instructors there. Kazakoff learned from GMS, and no changes were introduced by others. As far as the earlier versions going back to 60's and 70's? Some differences may have been introduced by GMS, some by other masters or instructors, I don't know. People's evolving personal style and understanding (or misunderstanding) of the art obviously makes a contribution, I am just saying that in the last decade or so of TKF there was a fair bit of misunderstanding, bad transmission, and even deliberate tampering with the knowledge. Comparing what Kazakoff practiced with what other senior members were taught originally provided an opportunity to restore some of the teaching that was changed and diluted over the years. There was a fair bit of advanced stuff in Kazakoff's forms and teaching that was missing from what was taught in the latter years of TKF. A lot of it was seen earlier by our senior members, but some of it was unique. He was not "a control sample" by design, and perhaps this is unfortunate wording, he just happened to be in a position to offer a unique perspective on the style which was not influenced by all the different people running all the other studios.

Hello 92, You posted, “(although I think you are being too picky about him contradicting himself -- yes, if you read it literally, he is, but you know what he means).” Actually, I am not trying to be too picky here. I asked about these “curiosities” because they troubled me. Now I am making a serious effort here to make sure that I clearly understood. By that same notion, I am making sure that I am clear about what others are saying. For example: You responded about what, exactly, was meant by “control sample” and I now know what that means. You posted, “Grasshopper is trying to piece this toghether from different sources in different localities and eras, and obviously there are gaps in everyone's info, with some of it possibly being controversial or not entirely accurate.” Yep, ain’t that the truth! Yet, you posted, “Not much can be done about that.” On the contrary, you and Swanstrom are contributing (where you did not, say, six months ago). During the last day (actually less than a day), there have been over 40 (forty) views of this thread, alone. I believe that serious work on this history is being achieved. Think what we, as a forum, could achieve if all members posted one post once a week about the history of our art from a testimonial point of view! Regards, MrE2Me2 Without prejudice E&OE

View Full Version: *NEW* Moh Kempo Lineage Tree

View Full Version: NEW Moh Kempo Lineage Tree