Ed Parker was wrong?

[kenpo_cory]

I was reading the book "The Journey" last night and I was reading Chuck Sullivan's story. Well, in one section on page 40 Mr. Sullivan tells a story about Mr. Parker bringing in Bruce Lee to watch a class. In Mr. Sullivan's exacts words:

"One day in the early sixties Ed told a group of us that he had met an incredible young martial artist and had invited him to observe the class. He introduced a skinny Chinese kid to us named Bruce Lee, who sat in the waiting room watching us on the mats. After the class was over, Ed went into his office leaving us alone with Bruce. We were having a pleasant conversation until Bruce casually said, "I was watching you guys do something earlier, and I was wondering why you were doing it." He then demonstrated what we had been practicing. Of course, the answer was obvious to all of us. We were doing it because that's the way Ed Parker was teaching it. When no one spoke up Bruce dropped a bomb. "Well, I just wondered because it's wrong," he said. That was the first time I ever heard the words "Ed Parker" and "wrong" matched up, and I was stunned. I looked around at the other guys. A couple of them looked like they were going to grab Bruce by his skinny neck and shake him until his butt plate fell off. Bruce quickly went on to explain that what we were doing violated a basic principle. Not a concept, but a principle. For example, the principle of gravity dictates that you can't stand on one leg unless that leg is directly under your center. You can't do it any other way without falling down. Then he showed us why the move was wrong. It wasn't enough to destroy my faith in the system, but Bruce was right. (end quote)


Now, I was wondering why would Mr. Parker teach an entire class a wrong principle? Did he do it on purpose to see if anyone would question him? Did he not know he was wrong? Did he set those guys up by showing them the wrong way and purposefully bringing in Bruce? This story had me wondering about the whole purpose of it. Can anyone verify or deny the validity of the story? Considering Mr. Sullivan got his Black belt in September 1962 I doubt there's anyone on this forum that was there. Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out to you guys and see if anyone has any answers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

While I can't answer your question specifically, I have heard that there are techniques in kenpo that are wrong or flawed, and are there to make to student think. As my kenpo knowledge never got to the higher levels, I can't answer with any authority, so please take it with a grain of salt.

GoldenDragons one of the seniors on MT, he might have some insite.

Yo! DC, where are you?

 

[satans.barber]

Well, nobody's perfect!

Ian.

 

[Jay Bell]

I agree with Ian. Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques. Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws? Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.

All in all, techniques are there for you to learn *from*...not just just blindly memorize the physical movements. They create strategy...moving from one principle to the next. Think of the techniques as ideas of methods of defense...and not an unstoppable physical movement.

I'm a bit surprised at Chuck Sullivan's story. It honestly sounds like these students in the class had diefied Mr. Parker...someone with sound combat experiance couldn't possibly know more then our good Mr. Parker...<??>

 

[Michael Billings]

As you said this was in the 60's, when Mr. Parker's Kenpo did not have the degree of sophistication he later added. At that time, if I am not mistaken, it was heavily influenced by Chinese Sets and Forms. This version is seen at the heart of the Tracy Kenpo practitioners, although they also grew and evolved, it was not the same direction as Ed Parker. Mr. Parker began to apply logic and physics to Kenpo, developing things like outer rim and point of origin. These are seen in other systems also, but not called the same things, nor are they all found within the same system.

I think that you can ask some of the other guys around at the time about Bruce Lee. The nunchaku story is hilarious, and the tree behind the old Pasadena school. Mike Pick, Tom Kelly, Ron Chapel, etc. all have stories. It is safe to say that Bruce Lee's questioning his roots and traditional Chinese kung-fu, was similar to Mr. Parker's questing mind in looking for "answers" in the Art. You must also realize that Mr. Parker's Kenpo of the time, looked very kung-fooey, the very thing Bruce Lee was rebelling against.

There are so many stories ... suffice it to say, that I have heard directly from people who were there and Mr. Parker, that they became fast friends. It is no wonder JKD (Inosanto version) has techniques like Returning Gift, they are just not called that.

Oss

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by Jay Bell
Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques. Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws? Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.

When Ed Parker was developing Kenpo in Utah, he taught police officers. These officers would return back to class to share experiences of what worked and what didn't. He then made changes based on their experiences.

Many techniques were combat-tested that way.

However, Ed is a strong believer of "Kenpo Evolution"--in other words, he wasn't stuck on tradition just because it has to be done that way.

Ed also knew that depending on circumstances and sizes of the attacker/defender, some techniques have to, by necessity, be modified.

Bottomline, we need to learn the basics enough to then be able to adjust. Be flexible.

Ed never was a "god" of Kenpo nor did he intend himself to be regarded as such. He should never be considered as having the "final" say, just because he originally taught it in a cartain way.

We do need to give him credit for bringing Kenpo into existence and helping the style to become more known.

- Ceicei

 

[rmcrobertson]

So just what principle was it that the tech violated?

So is the notion that Mr. Parker wasn't perfect (really?), but Bruce Lee was?

Personally, I'd argue that their early deaths were a much better sign of what their real limits as martial artists were than this technique or that technique...

But it is an interesting question...thanks.

 

[Jay Bell]

So is the notion that Mr. Parker wasn't perfect (really?), but Bruce Lee was?

Not a chance. Bruce was far from perfect....just wondering where you came up with that inclination?

 

[don bohrer]

I belong to the AKKA org that came out of TRA-CO. We have Kata such as boxing form, stalking panther, tiger and crane, and others that come to us from Hung Ga. I doubt all the original concepts of Hung Ga are represented now. Matter of fact after attending a Hung ga school here I am starting to understand things found in these kata a little differently.

So do we know what the violating principle was?

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
So just what principle was it that the tech violated?

I'm not sure, he never said. But in the story Mr. Sullivan said it was a basic one.

Originally posted by Jay Bell
I agree with Ian. Mr. Parker put together a large number of techniques. Do you honestly believe that every one of his techniques was combat tested to check for flaws? Working in a dojo doesn't necessarily mean working in real life....especially *how* it happens in the dojo.

All in all, techniques are there for you to learn *from*...not just just blindly memorize the physical movements. They create strategy...moving from one principle to the next. Think of the techniques as ideas of methods of defense...and not an unstoppable physical movement.?

The thing Bruce pointed out was not the ineffectiveness of a technique but that something they were doing was violating a basic principle. We don't learn techniques to learn how to violate principles, but to learn correct ones. I in no way question the effectiveness of the system I study. And I believe that when Mr. Parker went to California and opened his studio that he had a very good working knowledge of basic principles and knew if a certain movement violated one. That's why this story is so confusing to me. But, I also understand that Mr. Parker was not perfect or superhuman.

 

[Jay Bell]

Yeow...I just re-read my post. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't assuming that people didn't understand the reason techniques exist.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The original post was premised on the notion that Bruce Lee was Parker's superior in insight, since he was the only one able to point out the sloppy error--and it is interesting that the exact error isn't mentioned. Seems to me that that would be fundamental.

Second off--of course these guys aren't perfect. Of course, "we need to be flexible." Beyond these truisms, what does this anecdote suggest to anybody?

Third--"Bruce?" You've met?

Fourth--could anybody point out exactly which techniques, as they presently more or less stand, are flawed? and how they are?

Interesting topic.

 

[MJS]

I think that there are a few things to look at here.

1- What was is that the students were doing, that Bruce thought that it was wrong?

2- Whatever it was that was "wrong" to Bruce, might not be wrong to someone else. Was he basing this off of something in JKD?

3- As for meeting Bruce. This has nothing to do with the poster knowing him, it has to do with Chuck Sullivan knowing him.

4- As for what is flawed and what is not flawed. The tech. are going to work differently for everybody. Have all of these tech. been tested under real circumstances? I dont think so.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo_cory
I in no way question the effectiveness of the system I study. [/B]

Considering we all train for different reasons, I would think that if you were interested in SD, and being able to protect yourself, that you would want to question the effectiveness. I"m not just talking about the Parker system, I'm talking about any system. If you are going to invest time and money into learning to protect yourself, shouldnt you know that what you're learning is going to work under any condition?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound like I"m knocking the Parker system, because I'm not. I've been training in it for a while, and it is my base art.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...no. I feel the same way about calling Bruce Lee "Bruce," that I feel about my students calling, say, Emily Dickinson, "Emily:" not only does it seem to me to be, oddly enough, a breach of courtesy, but it suggests a kind of transference in which somebody dead is taken for a living, close acquaintance...

In this case, too, I think the name use is significant. The problem, to me, is a combo of too much veneration for a fantasy of a person, and not enough respect for an art and its techniques...

"Parker," "Lee," are for most of us what Michel Foucault would call an, "author-function," which entails a whole lot of stuff I won't take up anybody's time with.

 

[pete]

I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
And so dear friends
You just have to carry on...

lighten up francis and stay on topic

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by MJS
Considering we all train for different reasons, I would think that if you were interested in SD, and being able to protect yourself, that you would want to question the effectiveness. I"m not just talking about the Parker system, I'm talking about any system. If you are going to invest time and money into learning to protect yourself, shouldnt you know that what you're learning is going to work under any condition?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound like I"m knocking the Parker system, because I'm not. I've been training in it for a while, and it is my base art.

Mike

I don't question the effectiveness because I've used it, I've seen it used and without a shadow of a doubt, I know it works. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say I could make it work under ANY condition, but I have used it to defend myself. I do agree with you, at one time I did question it, and my questions were answered.

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Uh...no. I feel the same way about calling Bruce Lee "Bruce," that I feel about my students calling, say, Emily Dickinson, "Emily:" not only does it seem to me to be, oddly enough, a breach of courtesy, but it suggests a kind of transference in which somebody dead is taken for a living, close acquaintance...

In this case, too, I think the name use is significant. The problem, to me, is a combo of too much veneration for a fantasy of a person, and not enough respect for an art and its techniques...

"Parker," "Lee," are for most of us what Michel Foucault would call an, "author-function," which entails a whole lot of stuff I won't take up anybody's time with.

So would it have changed the context if I would have refered to him as Mr. Lee or Bruce Lee?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry that I took the issue seriously and wrote what I thought. I'll try not to do it again. By the way..."lighten up, Francis," works better if you use the feminine form of the name. Unless, of course, you're happy enough with just the suggestion that intellectuals are wimps...

As for "what's in a name," well, it's just my way of trying to get at a) the general construction of these sorts of discussions, in which it always seems to be a matter of, "errors," and "mistakes," v. "my superior knowledge," and b) the question always seems to be, "who personally received the Truth of Holy Writ?"

I still wanna know exactly what basic principle it was that Mr. Parker's technique appeared to violate...

Or if not that, then what other principles do the techniques violate for you all?

 

[Michael Billings]

Unless you call Chuck Sullivan, we may never know ... but I bet it is one that has been remedied and addressed by Mr. Parker's work in the subsequent 25 to 28 years following.

-MB