Originally posted by Brian Jones
I agree that while expressing how unique EPAK is we don't want to give the impression that Ed Parker came up with it on his own. Just as (in my opinion) the AKKI is unique yet Mr. Mills gives proper respect to Mr. Parker.
And no it really doesn't matter how far we go back, I was just curious where most people drew the line. So let me ask another question. Where then do we put people like Ark Wong, Jimmy Woo, Luan Bao (sp?)? Where would we put them in the lineage?
Brian Jones
Well actually he did. Although there are ideas and concepts that are inherent to all martial arts, the only true differences are in each arts goal, and how you choose to reach those goals. At the top there is very little disagreement.
To that extent, the goal and its methodology of what I know of Ed ParkerĀs personal use of the art is rather unique. It is important that one recognize my statements are not necessarily based on Ed ParkerĀs Commercial Art, but his personally evolved use of what he learned and extrapolated. The commercial art is on its face, quite shallow and devoid of information and real knowledge that can only be overcome by competent and knowledgeable instructors. This is something that appears to be extremely rare in the martial arts in general, and in American Kenpo in particular.
Personally I draw the line with Ed Parker himself. Although I personally studied with Ark Wong, it wasnĀt until I met Ed Parker in 63 did he begin to help me to understand much of what I had been exposed to previously. I never studied with James or Jimmy Woo but met them both, and they were clearly a major influence on, and contributed greatly to ParkerĀs knowledge. I heard many positive stories of Lau Bun coming from Northern California myself but never met him.
But then there are others that must be added to the list. And then thereĀs Huemea ĀTinyĀ Lefiti, whom Ed Parker most resembled in the old days when he executed techniques. Tiny interjected ĀSplashing HandsĀ giving Ed Parkers movements more of a contemporary flavor over more traditional Chinese Arts. Wally Jay via Henry Okazaki who influenced the Chin Na Parker was learning from Ark Wong and also too brought its concepts into the 20th century. Gene LeBellĀs modern interpretations of judo and contemporary wrestling also contributed much to ParkerĀs counter-grappling knowledge, which he spent a considerable amount of time perfecting. You must include Sea Oh Choi and later Bong Soo Han (whom he did a movie with) brought contributions, as did Tadashi Yamashita who in turn took from Kenpo via Tina Tuiolosega. There are many others but my point is a simple one.
First off, we must understand the whole question of lineage as it applies to the martial arts is a Japanese concept. The Chinese, for the most part, always kept the significant portions of their art within the family, passing it from father to son etc. The arts were "family arts" with many carrying the family names or family created names. The Japanese however culturally trace everything and anything with accompanying certifications. You can literally get certificates indicating you are a "master table setter." This is where this whole lineage thing gains its importance. Lineage is supposed to indicate you have been given the "correct way" to do something. Not necessarily the best or practical way, just the way the lineage you have chosen wants it done.
That's because the cultural aspect of the modern Japanese arts is not rooted in "fighting," only in the "idea" of fighting used to foster personal discipline and enlightenment, as per their cultural ĀCode of BushidoĀ perspective. Therefore Lineage is very important to the Japanese, if one is supposed to be teaching something the "correct way." Thus the term ĀDoĀ or ĀWayĀ attached to all of their Āwarrior art disciplines.Ā
The American culture is very much different. In the American culture we are absolutely results driven. That is what allows someone like Bruce Lee who was teaching at 19 after a few years of Wing Chun training to "do his own thing." He was only 24 and a "master" when he gave his famous demo at the International Karate Championships in Long Beach California. Bruce's lineage here was not a factor, as long as he could demonstrate the effectiveness of what he did. His credibility rested in his own hands, as most true modern masters.
Lineage can indicate where an instructor received his instruction, or certification (Black Belt) or it can indicate the style / school or Ryu he is teaching. In my opinion, and this is what Ed Parker felt as well, in America your lineage stops with the person who "taught" you directly. The person who "taught" you may have lineage to someone, but that doesn't mean you do. Additionally even this lineage has no meaning with regard to what YOU yourself decide to teach or your ability as an instructor or practitioner positive or negative.
SGM Parker make the statement that his American Kenpo had very little to do with Prof. Chow, and nothing to do with ChowĀs collaborative associate, James Mitose. Although Chow taught Parker, what Ed Parker eventually began to teach had very little to do with anything Chow physically taught. This is another example of why the lineage stops with "your" teacher. A simple example is, Chow is not in My Lineage, even though he is prominent in my teacherĀs.
But what of the question of "collaboration." Gene LaBell and Ed Parker got together and exchanged valuable information for years. Is Gene LaBell one of Ed Parker's teachers/students? Is Gene LaBell in his lineage like Chow? More than Chow? Less than Chow? When you go to a seminar or camp, do you suddenly become part of the lineage of whoever is teaching?
The significance of lineage is essentially left to the individualĀs credibility. If you are a student of Parker (as I was,) and you take a class with another teacher (as I did) does that change or enhance your lineage? Only you can say.
Would you allow a person, who you had promoted during your early years as a Black Belt, to include your name in their lineage, if what you now teach is radically different, and/or your instruction now much more advanced? What if they now taught what was only a small percentage of what you passed on to them? Maybe what you teach and require for Black Belt now is different from when they were promoted? Would it be acceptable to continue using your name to promote or market what they are now teaching as many do with the Parker name for the lineage connection?
The conclusion is Lineage insinuates some kind of relationship. The TWO parties involved can only define the extent of that relationship, and even they may not feel the same way over time all the time. Clearly lineage as I see it must be mutually agreed upon to have any validity. I myself have a black belt who insists I never promoted him, even though he studied with me for years, my signature is on all his I.K.K.A black belt diploma, and his test was witnessed by many. He is on the Parker family tree under my name, placed there by Ed Parker.
For reasons of his own he has chosen to remove me from his lineage, and claims only Ed Parker even though Parker didnĀt claim him. If you speak of "historical accuracy" the evidence is clear he had a relationship with me. Is he in my lineage? The answer is clearly no! Was he my student and did I promote him? Yes!
One thing for sure, lineage should not be used like a Āblue blood line.Ā This is America. Pedigree is for animals. We should all look at SGM Parker as the example, and take the challenge to improve Kenpo. It is indeed a challenge, but that challenge should be to improve YOUR Kenpo, not Ed ParkerĀs.
Kenpo has become a generic term. What you get depends on who teaches you. Everyone competes for students because it means revenue and that is the reason most organizations exist and NOT for the benefit of the student, but for their own. Instructors are trying to make it non-generic by claiming Ed Parker's Lineage and inferring specific curriculum, but is it ĀBilly BobĀs Kenpo, or Ed ParkerĀs? The answer is both and neither.
Lineage is moot, but ĀhistoryĀ is a different story. Chow is in my history, (like many others) not my lineage.
