Chow is in lineage of EPK????

[ob2c]

I just want to know if Prof Chow should be consider in AK's history or lineage.

Of course he is. A lineage is eveery one in your line. But lineage isn't the whole story. This concept was easier to apply when the arts were close held in villages, families or other small groups. But as we now have so much cross over between systems and styles it is a little harder to simply define a lineage.

I'd suggest looking at this more from the perspective of a tree. Mr Parker is the trunk, due to the magnitude and unique nature of what he did. The limbs and branches are those people and systems that sprang from his efforts. The roots are all those who contributed in some way to Mr. Parkers training and knowlege base. Some branches or roots might die, others might be cut off. But the tree livesand grows, while its roots spread back through history.

 

[Brian Jones]

Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage? With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma? How far back do we go?


Brian Jones

 

[CoolKempoDude]

Originally posted by Brian Jones
Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage? With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma? How far back do we go?


Brian Jones

go as far as it should

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Brian Jones
Ok, for the sake of arguement, where would you stop the lineage? With Chow Mitose, Choki Motobu, Bodiharma? How far back do we go?


Brian Jones

Why does it matter?
Go back as far as you like, all the way to Bodhidharma or further...or don't let them know who your instructor's instructor was. Your choice, your class.

Tell your students all about whomever you like, or don't.
I hope I'm not sounding upset or whatnot...I'm not. I just don't see this argument as being very important to me or my school.

I personally find the history aspects interesting, maybe even enlightening... but it's not really that crucial an aspect of Kenpo...I don't think.
Never had anyone ask me to help them learn history, just karate.

IF asked about the history, I'll tell them about as much as I can... Parker, Chow, Motobu....Bodhidharma....or even those w/no logical connection to specifically Kenpo/Kempo...if there's a good lesson to be learned in it.

As for the Aikido stuff...
1. It's not my art, I don't know...don't care. The art of Aikido is cool and I'm sure quite good to learn. Everyone has skeletons if you dig deep enough and through enough closets. All we should care about concerning skelletons in closets is to NOT become one of them and add to the rotten bone-heap....to not be an embarasement to those who come after us.
2. Lots of opinions, some curious facts...probably never know the WHOLE truth about it, even the most well mannered discussion about it doesn't help anyone, Aikidoka or not.
3. It's not Kenpo, probably doesn't belong here in such a tightly controlled EPAK-only forum.
Your Brother
John

 

[dcence]

Heck, I think you should trace the lineage back to Cain, who popped Abel in the field; he probably used marriage of gravity when he brought the rock down on poor Abel's head.

Chow is in EPAK's lineage. If EPAK contains material Chow showed Mr. Parker, and that is enough to establish the tie as a predecessor in lineage.

Just because I started my own family doesn't make Dwayne Ence any less my father, or my kids his grandchildren.

It doesn't diminish Mr. Parker's accomplishment in my eyes one iota to know that American Kenpo is not 100% his creation, any more than it does a scientist that uses Einstein's theory of relativity to come up with some great discovery.

Ask yourself this, if Mr. Parker had not studied with Chow, would EPAK be what it is? If yes, you could wipe Chow completely out of the lineage as if he never existed. But the answer is no.

Derek Ence

 

[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

 

[Doc]

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 Parker’s personal use of the art is rather unique. It is important that one recognize my statements are not necessarily based on Ed Parker’s 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 wasn’t 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 Parker’s 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 there’s Huemea “Tiny” Lefiti, whom Ed Parker most resembled in the old days when he executed techniques. Tiny interjected “Splashing Hands” 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 LeBell’s modern interpretations of judo and contemporary wrestling also contributed much to Parker’s 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 “Code of Bushido” perspective. Therefore Lineage is very important to the Japanese, if one is supposed to be teaching something the "correct way." Thus the term “Do” or “Way” attached to all of their “warrior art disciplines.”

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 Chow’s 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 teacher’s.

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 individual’s 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 didn’t 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 “blue blood line.” 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 Parker’s.

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 “Billy Bob’s Kenpo, or Ed Parker’s? The answer is both and neither.

Lineage is moot, but “history” is a different story. Chow is in my history, (like many others) not my lineage.

 

[Michael Billings]

Good perspective Doc. What "influences" you, or contributes to your training, i.e. seminars, camps, etc., is not necessarily a part of your "lineage", as lineage implies a much more formal relationship, nor is it necessarily consentual. Ed Parker, Sr. was in many, many Black Belt student's lineage when he was alive, but this did not mean he had ever even heard their names, the organization was so large and fragmented even then. Imagine what it is now with all the "new" organizations since his death?

History v. lineage is a nice way of addressing the difference. People should not get their you know whats in a wad over the difference. While it can be a "hot" topic, especially in more traditional arts, Kenpo is now so ecclectic and to some extent generic, that it all falls under the umbrella of EPAK ... unless it is NOT, then, why should everyone else worry about it? You are only cutting your own line short, which is your choice.

-Michael

 

[Nightingale]

I would say that Chow should be included in Mr. Parker's lineage, but not in American Kenpo's lineage, because American Kenpo originated with Mr. Parker.

a different example:

Art Fry invented the post-it (with a little help from Spencer Silver who invented the sticky stuff). Should we also include in the credit of who invented the post-it, the ancient egyptians, who invented paper in approximately 3000 BCE???

We have to be reasonable here. Art Fry invented the post-it. It was his own unique creation, built with resources provided by others. Ditto with American Kenpo. It is unique beginning with Ed Parker, therefore, he should be credited as its founder and creator, and the lineage should begin with him.

 

[Zoran]

Well that was a fun read.

My, outsiders, point of view is this.

1. Chow is a part of Ed Paker's Kenpo lineage.
2. Chow is also a part of American Kenpo lineage.
3. Chow has some influence in the origins of American Kenpo.
4. The origins of American Kenpo comes from the experieces and the mind of Ed Parker. Which if he wasn't the man he was, there would never be an American Kenpo.

I sometimes wonder what SGM Parker would say if he could speak to us now. From what I've learned from others that knew him well, he would probably say "Chow was my teacher", and end it with that. Coming from a system that has gone it's own route from the 60's to now, I find this debate and heat generating from it somewhat odd (actually I find a lot of AK-ist quirks odd). I come from a system unique from the system taught by John McSweeney to my instructor. The same can be said about the system of McSweeney compared to Parker. Yet it never would dawn on us to say McSweeney or Parker is not part of our lineage.

Really what it all boils down to is you can believe what you wish and give credit to your past teachers any way you wish. Call it lineage, or call it history. Semantics is irrelevant, what is relevant is training and giving credit where credit is due (although not reqired, just respectfull).

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Adam and Eve are in the lineage of EPAK. This thread is so silly. Really, it is all semantics. It is about as relevant as debating whether Mr. Parker habitually tied his left shoe or his right shoe first.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Adam and Eve are in the lineage of EPAK. This thread is so silly. Really, it is all semantics. It is about as relevant as debating whether Mr. Parker habitually tied his left shoe or his right shoe first.

I'm going to make an argument for the right shoe. I haven't figured out how, yet, but I'll get there. And it will have something to do with stepping forward into a right neutral bow.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead. Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.

 

[Bill Lear]

Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead. Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.

I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.

:asian:

Amen

 

[Goldendragon7]

I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage.

American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker.

While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.
:asian:

Hey....... now you're getting it! You Da Man! (now if we can just get everybody else on the same page)

 

[Pacificshore]

I think Mr. Chow should be included in Kenpo's Lineage, but I don't think he has a place in American Kenpo's lineage. American Kenpo is the creation of Edmund K. Parker. While Mr. Chow certainly played a part in Mr. Parker's early years of training he did not participate in the creation of Ed Parker's American Kenpo System as it exists today.

:asian:

The same would hold true for Kajukenbo. Although Professor Chow was Sijo Emperado's instructor, Sijo Emperado developed his system with 4 other martial artist. While Emperado's linage would include Professor Chow, I would gather that all of his black belts line would end with him, Emperado, at the top :asian:

 

[GAB]

Actually to honor the spirit of Kenpo is to acknowledge our roots no matter where they come from or where they lead. Honor the past to ensure the future of the Martial Arts.

Hi all,

Pretty simply stated and true.

Both EPAK and Kajukenbo are in the lineage of Proffesor Chow, Both EPAK and Kajukenbo give credit to Chow for their beginings. So what is the problem?

Like Yogi said, "when you come to a fork (Y) in the road take it", they both did, but they both created that Y, more power to them in my book.

If you want to go back to the roots, that is fine also and if you want to go on with the inovators that is good too.

If you look at the weapons of war, Guns, Knives, Sticks they are all useful but if all you have are empty hands, well hope you are good at what you do.

Regards, Gary

 

[Kenpohermit]

I voted NO. While Professor Chow taught Mr. Parker his style of Kenpo.
It was Mr. Parker who created American Kenpo and the founder of a
system is the one who goes on top of a lineage. Musashi for example learned
from his father as well as a number of others yet upon creating Niten Ichi Ryu
he became the founder. The reason I use Musashi as an example is because I
noticed that most of the people that seemed offended that in American Kenpo
we dont include Prof. Chow for the lineage were from "more" traditional martial
arts back grounds, so I figured I'd give a some what "traditional" example.
Another example is Morihei Ushiba founder of Aikido, In Aikido he is the
founder his teachers were many and they are aknowledged in the history
leading up to the creation of that system but not in the lineage of the system its self.

I sometimes get the feeling that the some of the more traditional folks just cant stand to have an American in origin system, they wanna try to find ways to say it comes from an asian master or it comes from anceint China or Japanese Samurai etc. It's a shame if my assumption is correct because martial arts are not limited to any race or culture. If it makes them feel any better Ed Parker has the blood of a Hawaiian king so now can he please be the head of the system he created without some trying to take away from his credit!

 

[Doc]

As an American holding fast to the American Culture against the forces of what seems to be an avalanche of muti-culturalism, I don't think the term "lineage" has much meaning in our culture. Lineage is just another word for "pedigree." We American's are "mongrels" who focus on getting the job done, and if you can do that, nobody cares about your "pedigree" or lineage. "Lineage is a European (bloodline), and Japanese (the WAY you do) invention that places great emphasis on whom you were born to, where you come from, or that your "teacher lineage" proves you know the "correct" WAY something is supposed to be done.

Lineage was never an issue for Emperado, Parker, or even Chow. Why? because they could knock you on your can, and that makes "pedegree" and "lineage" moot in a fighting art. For other more cultural based disciplines whose emphasis lies elsewhere wrapped in their rituals of bowing, titles, extreme codes of honor, and grunts of admonition, that may be a different story.

In America its not about pedegree or lineage, but simply a matter of history. Not who your parents were but who you are. When you examine history, many have a place in the telling of how things came to pass, but lineage? No! The many faces of Ed Parker's own brand of Kenpo began with him, and although Chow is a part of his and all of our Kenpo history (and Mitose too), The only person upstream in my Kenpo teaching was Ed Parker Sr.

If you insist on using the word "lineage," add "teacher" in front of it and then it begins to make more sense. Talk about how who taught you and who taught them, etc. Otherwise you're just talking "pedegree" as if that somehow makes someone legitimate if their pedegree is correct. Here's a flash. The majority of Ed Parker's black belts over his lifetime sucked. So much for "lineage."

Let's see now, I'm in every volume of Infinite Insights, I'm in the Parker videos, I have my diplomas including that last 7th, I ran the IKC for 12 years and wrote the rules book, and oh yes, I'm listed as first generation on the one and only family tree published by Ed Parker. Does that make me acceptable? For some, no. For others maybe, but accept me or not on my own knowledge and ability. This is America and I wouldn't have it any other way.