Why the 23rd successor ?

Why the 23rd successor ?
Why the 23rd successor ? I make it a point to separate the art from the biz. Anyone who reads my posts knows this. Yet this thread is concerned with the 23rd successor tale. I personally don’t believe this tale. I didn’t believe it when I first heard it back in the day. And I don’t believe it now, nor do I care. But I am curious as to why the number 23 came to be. Why not 26 or 20 or 30 for that matter? I came across a site tonight. http://www.psykenpology.org/lineage.htm Several things stood out. James Mitose was the 21st generation descendent James Mitose taught William Chow. William Chow taught Ed Parker Master Chow breaks with Master Mitose. Ed Parker goes on to form A.K.K.A. Grand Master Ed Parker promotes Edward John Overchuk to 3rd degree Black Belt. Edward John Overchuk makes the claim that he is a: 23 generation descendent of the Kenpo system. Somewhere in the discovery transcript I seem to recall Olaf making a reference to Ed Parker. Could this be where he heard of the claim to begin with? Could this be the origins of the number 23rd ??? Without prejudice

It's a bit of a stetch but with this subject there is very little hard fact to base anything on... like connecting the dots. There are just way too many coincidences like this when it comes to his history, the similarities are too close to ignore.

That's just an example of what gets alot of people's goat's! Lineage! I guess at one time it mattered, back when your sifu/sensei would give you permission and his/her blessings to teach, just as their sifu gave it to them. It was a form of quality control, if you dared to teach without your teacher's blessings, you could expect a visit from him or one of his disciples and they would shut you down!! Yes, at one time Chinese would only teach other Chinese, some would only teach members of their family, it could be very strict, very secretive. Chen style was like that, for around 15 generations it was a family art, it was only around 200 years ago that they taught anyone outside their line and only 80 years ago that some of the family members left their village to teach in Beijing. I've heard of other styles that are even more secretive then that, though is it being secretive or a means of quality control, or another type of control! Whe Simon ststes that he is the 23rd generation, it is assumed that there were 22 previous GM's ! Now who were these previous GM's? If you were to look at the late Ed Parker's line, you would see that his main teacher was a man named Chow, who in turn was taught by Mitose. Now Mitose had other students apart from Chow, and Chow had other students apart from Parker. So, I could be taught a form of Kenpo that is very similar to Parker's but it could be through a different student of Chow's or Mitose for that matter! Where are the teacher's that were taught Simon's line, or rather where are the teacher's that were taught from the mysterious Fu Yen, or his teacher's? It seems hard to believe that this line died out, except for Simon that is! Unless of coarse it is all made up, totally self-invented!

Why the 23rd Successor 2 Hello Cam, You said a mouthful when you said lineage. Lineage!!! For instance, James Mitose was taught William Chow for awhile. Yet James Mitose’s life is shrouded in controversy. Click here for a quick thumbnail sketch of this remarkable man. http://www.evolutionkarate.com/ArticlesJamesMitose.html Some claim that Choki Motobu was James Mitose ‘s uncle/instructor. Here is a link. http://www.urbin.net/EWW/MA/KEMPO/motobu.html Then there is William Chow. “Thunderbolt “Chow was another fellow whose life was unusual. While alive, he lived in virtual obscurity. When he died, he died in poverty. He taught Ed Parker and Sam Kuoha to name just a couple. Here is the Tracy history of him. http://www.tracyskarate.com/History/Chow.htm Ed Parker is said to have awarded Olaf is 8th degree black belt. Here is a link to an interview with the man himself. http://www.usadojo.com/articles/magician-motion.htm Of all the interesting things that he says, this quote sticks out. “Authenticity is said to be based on one having Oriental heritage," the passage goes. '.But how false this belief is, for talent is not a gift given to a particular race of people but to individuals. “

Kenpo....it seems that art has it's fair share of controversy! Perhaps we should just call it Goju A. Not Goju Ryu! Not Goju Kai, but..... Goju Americana!!!!;-)

Hey Cam, Yep! Kempo and controversy seemed linked. (A Rhetorical Question). With all this unprovable lineage, why am I still so bent out of shape over Olaf and Moh? Why not just move on and save myself a lot of trouble? (My Answer) Because the style works, even if the biz doesn't.

For me personally, GMS's lineage is totally unimportant. I really don't care where he learned the stuff, as long as it works (of which I'm firmly convinced). In fact, I'd be far more skeptical of something which has been passed down unchanged for generations, than of something which has been redesigned for the modern era by a practical, scientific mind. If GMS did, indeed, make up his lineage, it's no more than what many others have done, and since he was marketing a good product, no harm has been done thereby. But I prefer to consider him innocent until proven guilty, and I haven't seen any conclusive proof either way. Having said that, I can theorize. GMS said that Fu Yen is actually pronounced "Ho Yen". We've also heard that GMS was taught by the same master as Ark Yuey Wong (AYW) was. If you do some research, you will come up with the following: GMS was taught the Moh style by Ho Yen. AYW was taught the Mok style by Ho Yeng. Coincidence? Let's look further. Both the Moh and the Mok systems were named after the master who created them (not uncommon). Both GMS and AYW were teaching the Five Animal Style (Tiger, Dragon, Crane, Leopard, Snake) and Hung. The trademark of AYW's system is "maximum power and efficiency with the least amount of exertion" (source: www.shenmartialarts.com/NgGaKuenIKFArticleSMA.html). Sound familiar? It should, it's the most fundamental concept in GMS's system too. The differences in what GMS and AYW were teaching can be explained by the fact that AYW had many other masters besides Ho Yeng, and that GMS made many modifications to the style to make it more efficient and practical (same sort of thing as Bruce Lee had done to his style). AYW ended his studies with Ho Yeng around 1919, and GMS began his in 1935, giving the master plenty of time to meet the Simons and immigrate to Germany. This is only a guess, but perhaps AYW was one of the two other silver sash holders that GMS mentions? The spelling differences are not in the least surprising, since they appear between different AYW bios as well (Ho Yeng is also referred to as Ho Ark Yeng, Ho Dack Ying, and Back Ying Ho; Mok is also spelled Mawk, Muk, and Mo). I have a TKF yellow page ad from the early nineties which states that membership includes L.A. (among other cities), even though TKF did not have a studio there. I have heard that the studio belonged to AYW's descendants/successors, and that because of their common lineage, GMS and AYW had some sort of agreement which allowed their students to train in each other's studios. Unfortunately, AYW's studio closed down shortly after, and L.A. was removed from the list of membership cities. Does any of this prove anything? Not really. It shows a possible, consistent version of history, which links GMS's lineage with AYW's. But some people may argue that GMS may have plagiarized his lineage, or invented it in such a way as to match AYW's. If that was true and we consider that Fu Yen never existed, we would have to conclude that GMS lied under oath. We would be at a loss to explain how he got the knowledge to create such an effective system, or how he would simultaneously spar 5 good black belts from various styles, or how his students got to be so successful in martial arts tournaments, or how he got to referee world-class championships, or how he was able to accomplish his unmatched demonstrations (including the 1270 lb ice break), etc., etc. My point is that it's much easier to believe he was taught by a Shaolin Master, than to try to explain how he got to be that good otherwise. And if he did indeed become one of the best martial artists in North America by learning from a magazine, as some people claim, then that in itself would be his greatest feat!!!

Some people have been asking why there seems to be no proof of GMS's lineage. But really, what kind of proof do they expect? Considering the poor level of bookkeeping that existed a century ago, as well as all the wars, fires, and other disasters that have occurred since then, I think it's no wonder at all that you can't find any references to Fu Yen on the web, which has only been around for hardly more than a decade. Ark Yuey Wong (AYW) was a very well respected Kung Fu grand master. Alright then, can you prove the existence of his masters Lam Ark Fun and Ho Yeng (not to mention his other 14 masters for which I couldn't even find any names)? If you do a google search, you will come up with nothing which relates to Kung Fu, except in reference to AYW himself (or a movie character in Iron Monkey). So, by the same reasoning, should we now conclude that these masters didn't exist either, and that AYW was a fake who made up his own lineage? If you're not prepared to make such a claim, I think it's equally preposterous to say that Fu Yen couldn't have existed just because there's no mention of him on the internet. What if GMS produced some kind of document or certificate proving his lineage? Would that satisfy anybody? People who think that GMS lied under oath about the existence of Fu Yen will also think that whatever document he may produce would also be fake. What if GMS brought out photos and detailed descriptions to substantiate all his claims? Again, people will think that the photos could be of anyone and the descriptions could be totally made up. My point is that I very much doubt any proof can exist which would satisfy those who don't want to believe in it. That also goes for many other masters, such as AYW. It also goes for religion and many other things in life.

"Where are the teacher's that were taught Simon's line, or rather where are the teacher's that were taught from the mysterious Fu Yen, or his teacher's? It seems hard to believe that this line died out, except for Simon that is! Unless of coarse it is all made up, totally self-invented!" Well, I think Ark Yuey Wong (AYW) might be one of them. If not, then I ask you where are the other teachers from AYW's master Ho Yeng, or his teachers? Unless, of course, AYW's lineage is also all made up, totally self-invented! Remember also that Simon used what he learned only as a foundation to develop his own style. So in fact his style may look quite different from what Fu Yen actually taught.

Vortex, Simon's art is crap. One day you will understand and will be quite embarassed to say that you trained in TKF. His art is a joke.

Hello TKF_PHS, I normally don’t post at this time of day. But you have me curious. What is it that you want from this forum? And just so we are clear here. I was the President of Simon Kung Fu Studios (Surrey) Ltd. Now bankrupt. I do know what it is to be angry and bitter. I do know what it is to be suspicious of anyone who trains at TKF / SKS. I don’t speak for Vortexx. I speak as the guy who started this thread. It is a question about lineage. Why is the number 23 so important? I mean, you are even on the wrong thread to be talking about the art. If you are saying his art is no good then what is it about the art that you don’t like? Then this is the link that you want to post at. http://templekungforum.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=30 Or possibly here. http://templekungforum.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=11 (And as a personal aside from me to you: What would it take for you to let go of your rage?) Regards, MrE2Me2

"Simon's art is crap." If you don't get it, it doesn't mean that others don't. Many people who have cross-trained extensively agree that the style is solid. Saying that it has nothing at all to offer is either ignorant or prejudiced (or both). In any case, MrE2Me2 is right: if there is something particular you don't like about the style, bring it up on the appropriate topic.

Hello Vortexx Sorry to be so long in responding but I got caught up in other threads. That is a nice plausible tale about AYW. And it does seem to circumvent all I said about Mitose’s link to Moh. It certainly is every bit as possible and proveable. To Every One We have read about a possible Chinese connection here. That being said, Al Tracy has written a very, very long bio of “James” Mitose. In it he makes the following claim. “IMPORTANT: James Mitose was not the founder of Kenpo -- he was the 21st generation blood descendant of the founder. The complete Kosho Shorei Kenpo system had been developed and refined over a period of 800 years, starting in the 1200's. James Mitose added nothing to Kenpo. Nor did he take anything away from the system.” Here is the link. http://www.tracyskarate.com/History/Mitose/Mitose.htm And we thought the Moh system has controversy.

Kenpo.....ughhhh!!!! Not that I think kenpo is a bad art, it's just that it is probably the most abused art in North America. If any art could use some lineage charts right now, well that would be kenpo! Since the 50's-60's when kenpo first arrived it has splintered into so many diverse lines, so much has been added, why I've seen schools that teach kenpo/hapkido, kenpo/tkd, kenpo/kali, etc,etc.... I am sure you would find some good stuff, unfortunately you may find some real trash! Some people are of the opinion that Simon's art is trash! Some people seem to think that properly augmented, Simon's art could be quite effective. Some people say, that taught properly, Simon's art is highly effective! Taught properly! That's what lineage is all about! If you ever hope to achieve a high level of skill, YOU WILL HAVE TO BE SHOWN! You can only be shown by someone who was taught properly themselves! Forget about trying to figure it out yourself nonsense! If the art has any value, it has to be taught, not guessed at! Sorry, kind of went off on a tangent there! What I was going to say ,was, all those somebodies are correct! It just seems that you have to be careful on which of those "somebodies " is teaching you!

View Full Version: Why the 23rd successor ?