# Is It Important To Have A Successor?



## MJS (Dec 20, 2005)

Many times, the founder or current head of a system will designate someone to take over the art once they pass. EPAK has many high ranking people who have gone on to carry on the teachings of Mr. Parker, in their own unique way. There are different branches, each with their own way of doing things.

My question is: If Mr. Parker had left someone as successor to the art, would things be different from the way they are today?


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Dec 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> My question is: If Mr. Parker had left someone as successor to the art, would things be different from the way they are today?


 
Without a doubt.

DarK LorD


----------



## MJS (Dec 20, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Without a doubt.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
Would you care to expand on this from your point of view?  :ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Blindside (Dec 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> My question is: If Mr. Parker had left someone as successor to the art, would things be different from the way they are today?


 
I don't think so, there were several breakoffs prior to Mr. Parkers death, and I think people are simply loyal to people, not necessarily to the official lineage.  If an official lineage goes to someone who I don't think has as good a combination of knowledge, technique, teaching ability, and character as another, then I'll follow the guy who I thought was better.  

Lamont


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Would you care to expand on this from your point of view? :ultracool
> 
> Mike


 
I'll answer with my opinion Mr Parker would have the respect from his top students to follow his wishes about his art, with that being said Mr parker always like to try new and different variations of the same techniques from time to time.  People have a trendicies to have to be the one and since nobody was left they all decided to teach the way they thought he wanted.
Terry


----------



## Seig (Dec 20, 2005)

I believe that the system may be different, but not so much a lot of the politics. Mr. Parker had people constatntly coming and going, some for their own agendas and others that thought change was bad, and even some that thought he was not changing fast enough. I feel the main difference that we would have today is a lot less people openly bad mouthing him or falsely claiming training.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2005)

Not really, there still would've been political fighting for control and new organizations splitting off with their own big poopa.

After 35 years training, a person is unlikely to decided to remain under someone with about the same experience, there is going to come a time where a person refuses to follow and has to go their own way.

It's in our nature, we follow till we are comfortable then eventually we want to start making the decissions for ourself.

Same thing has happened in every system that has tried to have a single head.


----------



## Danjo (Dec 20, 2005)

I think that it only works when you have something rigid for a successor to defend and perpetuate. When something is in a constant state of flux, then a successor does little good. If Parker had left a rigid system like Shotokan etc., then there would be a point to have someone there to defend it's orthodoxy. What Parker left, it seems, was a concept similar to how Bruce Lee left JKD. Therefore, the only successor that he could have left would have been one that would continue to run his business and say who was officially promoted etc.


----------



## Doc (Dec 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Many times, the founder or current head of a system will designate someone to take over the art once they pass. EPAK has many high ranking people who have gone on to carry on the teachings of Mr. Parker, in their own unique way. There are different branches, each with their own way of doing things.
> 
> My question is: If Mr. Parker had left someone as successor to the art, would things be different from the way they are today?


No. Ed Parker was a completely unique individual who despite his "uniqueness," never kept any of his people together and moving in the same direction. He began "losing" students in the beginning and always lost significant students for various reasons in every generation.

Many of the "factions" of kenpo that split off from Parker existed while he was alive. Now that he has passed, nothing has changed except the number of 10ths. Many that did stay did so only until they achiweved the rank they were seeking over knowledge that was available they didn't seek for whatever reason.

Clearly a named successor would have, at the least, done no better than Parker himself to hold people together, and the introduction of the commercial product did nothing but exacerbate the situation. A successor in all likelyhood, would have not done any better than what we have today.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> No. Ed Parker was a completely unique individual who despite his "uniqueness," never kept any of his people together and moving in the same direction. He began "losing" students in the beginning and always lost significant students for various reasons in every generation.
> 
> Many of the "factions" of kenpo that split off from Parker existed while he was alive. Now that he has passed, nothing has changed except the number of 10ths. Many that did stay did so only until they achiweved the rank they were seeking over knowledge that was available they didn't seek for whatever reason.
> 
> Clearly a named successor would have, at the least, done no better than Parker himself to hold people together, and the introduction of the commercial product did nothing but exacerbate the situation. A successor in all likelyhood, would have not done any better than what we have today.


 
To give further evidence of this point:

I have seen this in other arts as well. A sucessor or group of people selected to continue on who may or may not be the current "Active" students. They may or may not be the Highest promoted by the Leader of the Art. There may be issues of Rank or personalities or policitics including greed that could offer for the splits in today's environment. 

A good Student will know his teacher has taught him, even if it is different from what he may have taught others. This student with the right training and understanding should be able to make a good instructor. This instructor may not appeal to everyone, due to the above mentioned politics or personailities or even egos. 

I think it might have been different, yet close in the end. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Dec 20, 2005)

I really do enjoy seeing debates that are thought provoking like this. Thanks for commenting everyone .


----------



## Doc (Dec 20, 2005)

IWishToLearn said:
			
		

> I really do enjoy seeing debates that are thought provoking like this. Thanks for commenting everyone .


Many of the "newbies" lack perspective through no fault of their own. But off the top of my head: Parker's second black belt, James ibrao, left him in less than a year after receiving his black in 9 months. Rick Flores, and Rich Montgomery left to go with Jimmy Woo when he left. Dave German left to start his own style, T.A.I. Karate. Joe Dimmick, started Red Dragaon and later Sam Pai Kenpo, Bob Perry dubbed Universal Kenpo, The Tracy's, etc. All left in the late fifties to early sixties to do there own thing long before most people you know in kenpo even started with Parker. Nothing new. Just some memories from one of the "ancients."


----------



## IWishToLearn (Dec 20, 2005)

*Looks for the icon for Newbie and holds it up proudly*

:feedtroll


----------



## Doc (Dec 20, 2005)

IWishToLearn said:
			
		

> *Looks for the icon for Newbie and holds it up proudly*
> 
> :feedtroll


"Don't irritate the Ancients" - or feed the bears!


----------



## MJS (Dec 20, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> No. Ed Parker was a completely unique individual who despite his "uniqueness," never kept any of his people together and moving in the same direction. He began "losing" students in the beginning and always lost significant students for various reasons in every generation.
> 
> Many of the "factions" of kenpo that split off from Parker existed while he was alive. Now that he has passed, nothing has changed except the number of 10ths. Many that did stay did so only until they achiweved the rank they were seeking over knowledge that was available they didn't seek for whatever reason.
> 
> Clearly a named successor would have, at the least, done no better than Parker himself to hold people together, and the introduction of the commercial product did nothing but exacerbate the situation. A successor in all likelyhood, would have not done any better than what we have today.


 
Would having a successor eliminate the politics that we often see?


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Would having a successor eliminate the politics that we often see?



I highly doubt it.  Politics will still continue.  There will always be others that may question the role of that successor or suggest someone else might be better.  It doesn't really matter whether it is martial arts, sports, business, or even a grass-roots organization.  Politics (whether overt or "behind doors") will tend to crop up.

- Ceicei


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Dec 21, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Would you care to expand on this from your point of view? :ultracool
> 
> Mike


 
If Parker had named a successor, he would have also outlined the curriculum he wanted taught, and to who for that matter.    I don't think we'd be facing "Well, Parker wanted change" attitude near as much, and I think the standard would've held with the majority.     Yes, you'd have factions and separations, but nothing like we have now where some are on the 24, 16 etc..    I also think that a lot of the changes/deletions would've come to a much more halted state had he left a successor with curriculum to be taught as EPAK.    Politics however, wouldn't have changed and the IKKA would still be dead.

DarK LorD


----------



## MJS (Dec 21, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> If Parker had named a successor, he would have also outlined the curriculum he wanted taught, and to who for that matter. I don't think we'd be facing "Well, Parker wanted change" attitude near as much, and I think the standard would've held with the majority. Yes, you'd have factions and separations, but nothing like we have now where some are on the 24, 16 etc.. I also think that a lot of the changes/deletions would've come to a much more halted state had he left a successor with curriculum to be taught as EPAK. Politics however, wouldn't have changed and the IKKA would still be dead.
> 
> DarK LorD


 
Thanks Clyde!  This is along the lines of what I was thinking.  I agree that the problems would most likely be there, but at least there would be someone as a guide, so to speak.

Mike


----------



## jdinca (Dec 21, 2005)

Having a successor might have helped maintain some cohesiveness. Someone needs to guide the ship. The numerous different kenpo styles would still exist but there may have been less political back biting if a strong, respected individual were at the top. EPAK in particular might be in a better position if there had been a successor named.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> "Don't irritate the Ancients" - or feed the bears!


 
Doc,  I am curious as to when you first met Mr. Parker and became his student.  Thank you.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Dec 21, 2005)

I can only think of one Asian-origin martial art that has stayed true to the founder and not splintered. And that art did it without naming a _single_ person as _the_ successor. Instead, that art chose to establish an international governing body, clear and consistent rules for international competition, and a clear curriculum. That art is Judo.

Every other art I can think of that is big enough to support more than a handful of schools has experienced the same kind of splintering as Kenpo. It is because the unity of the art is based on the leadership of the individual rather than the strength of the infrastucture built around the system. If a successor or "Soke" is appointed, that person will either want to keep things the same or to change things. Splintering is bound to occur as some people can't stand change and others can't stand not-changing. Throw in the every other instructor's need to grow, get some recognition, and run their own show and splintering becomes inevitable. 

So, my answer is it's not the person, it's the process. If Parker had never ever changed his curriculum from the 32 technique version, if he had published technique manuals and requirements 20 years earlier than he did, and if he made the competition rules for the IKC's the criteria for promotion, then (and only then) would Kenpo have a chance of remaining a single unified system. By the time Infinite Insights was published, it was already 20 years too late.


----------



## Doc (Dec 21, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Doc,  I am curious as to when you first met Mr. Parker and became his student.  Thank you.


1963 - 1990


----------



## Doc (Dec 21, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> I can only think of one Asian-origin martial art that has stayed true to the founder and not splintered. And that art did it without naming a _single_ person as _the_ successor. Instead, that art chose to establish an international governing body, clear and consistent rules for international competition, and a clear curriculum. That art is Judo.


That is overwhelmingly correct.


> Every other art I can think of that is big enough to support more than a handful of schools has experienced the same kind of splintering as Kenpo.


Also correct. And believe it or not, the biggest and most significant defections to this day, occurred while Mr. Parker was living.


> It is because the unity of the art is based on the leadership of the individual rather than the strength of the infrastucture built around the system.


Yes, and Mr. Parker's many versions NEVER were solidified during his lifetime. At any point during his lifetime there were multiple interpretations depending on who you were, what you wanted to learn, and what he chose to teach you. The transitions between and with the many different evolutions all produced students who continued on the line they were introduced to. Few actually evolved or changed with Parker. Each generation or splinter became comfortable with the material their rank was based upon, and were not interested in "new' material. Therefore if they didn't physically leave, they left philosophically and promoted their version of material Parker himself had abandoned, and their students in turn did the same. All of these versions existed and moved their lineages concurrently with each other.


> If a successor or "Soke" is appointed, that person will either want to keep things the same or to change things. Splintering is bound to occur as some people can't stand change and others can't stand not-changing.


The double edged sword for sure. If he keeps things the same, they will argue about "how" Parker did it. If he changes things, then people will say he's not being "true" to Parker's teachings. If it happened to Parker himself, how could anyone stand up to such scruitiny from what would essentially be a group of peers?


> Throw in the every other instructor's need to grow, get some recognition, and run their own show and splintering becomes inevitable.


Exactly. The so-called "standard" curriculum has never existed and definitely wasn't in the conceptual based motion kenpo. Sure, ultimately he settled on a set number of techniques and forms for many in the motion version, but even then he never told anyone a definitive way to do any form, set, ot technique. Only interpretive guidelines. All of this while authorizing a 16 chart for others as well in the same version of his art, and even all of that changed throughout his lifetime. I have every version of that material and the guidelines changed constantly.


> So, my answer is it's not the person, it's the process. If Parker had never ever changed his curriculum from the 32 technique version, if he had published technique manuals and requirements 20 years earlier than he did, and if he made the competition rules for the IKC's the criteria for promotion, then (and only then) would Kenpo have a chance of remaining a single unified system. By the time Infinite Insights was published, it was already 20 years too late.


And even then he would have had to meticulously write definitively HOW to do everything, which he NEVER did for ANY version of his arts. Otherwise arguements would breakout along the lines of, "That's not the way Parker showed me how to do that." Sound familiar? Maybe some of the newbies will understand that.


----------



## Danjo (Dec 21, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> I can only think of one Asian-origin martial art that has stayed true to the founder and not splintered. And that art did it without naming a _single_ person as _the_ successor. Instead, that art chose to establish an international governing body, clear and consistent rules for international competition, and a clear curriculum. That art is Judo.


 
Even here there is more than one school of judo. Kosen Judo, which is a pre-WWII version that more closely resembles what we see in BJJ today, differs a great deal from Kodokan Judo in that the latter gives preference to throws, and the former to ground work. In Shotokan, there is the big split between them and the Shotokai etc. etc. It never ends.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> 1963 - 1990


 
Thank you.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 21, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> 1963 - 1990


 
Dang, you're old. 

As for the How, and different generations...I have found myself grateful for the exposure of several different "generations" of oldsters, each having brought a different perspective and emphasis than the others. SL4 has had the deepest emphasis on "How" that I've seen yet, with impeccable reasoning behind the specifics. Sloppy feet don't move forward, and tailoring is, well, outdated? Verboten? Not suggested until you hit the nosebleeds?

Thanks Doc for showing a semi-oldster what it should look like.

Regards,

D.


----------



## Rick Wade (Dec 21, 2005)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Without a doubt.





			
				Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> DarK LorD




I agree with Clyde not necessarily better or worse but it would defiantly be different.  Mr. Parker was a strong man both spiritually and mentally when someone splintered off he let them go (i.e. Tracys).  I think he would be happy with the way things are going because each of the different Seniors have their own flair.  I just got done meeting Mr. Hancock and having juice with him yesterday and we talked for two hours.  At first we talked about the old days and then most of our conversation was about where he and Kenpo 2000 was different.  Not better or worse just different I personally found it very interesting and I gained knowledge from it.  Mr Hancock If you are reading this, I would like to personally thank you for taking time out of your schedule to sit and talk to me.

V/R

Rick


----------



## donald (Aug 2, 2011)

I think that if Mr.Parker would have appointed a successor American Kenpo would have stayed  a little more unified.


----------



## MJS (Aug 2, 2011)

Wow, this is an old thread, but in light of the recent Kajukenbo thread, I think its fitting.   OTOH, much like what was said in the Kaju thread, perhaps instead of having 1 person, perhaps a group or board of people, would be better.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 2, 2011)

I personally would have preferred a system of checks and balances.  The monarch style of governance doesn't seem to work well (except, ironically, everyone knows who the successor is when he or she dies).  When one person is charged with ruling, too much gets done that shouldn't and too little gets done that should.

A board of elected men and women who are responsible first and foremost for the art's growth, betterment, relevance, etc., seems like the best bet.


----------



## Buka (Aug 2, 2011)

I don't know if having an appointed successor is best or not. Probably is in some respects, maybe not so much in others.
But, I think if Ed had wanted a particular successor he would have appointed one.


----------



## Todd Reiner (Aug 2, 2011)

Wo Fat said:


> A board of elected men and women who are responsible first and foremost for the art's growth, betterment, relevance, etc., seems like the best bet.



Agreed.  I think if an organization is democratic and is able to represent all members of Kaju it could work and eventually find unity.  There are alot of "buts" etc with this though, it could happen.  Thoughts/Ideas?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 5, 2011)

Todd Reiner said:


> Agreed.  I think if an organization is democratic and is able to represent all members of Kaju it could work and eventually find unity.  There are alot of "buts" etc with this though, it could happen.  Thoughts/Ideas?



Before answering that question, let me address the obvious: politics.  IMO, there are two types of politicians.  Those who make it a practice to serve all; and those who make it a practice to serve themselves.  Bold proclamations about who's in charge and who isn't, usually turn out to be thinly veiled power grabs.  It's good politics in the short term, but in the long term that kind of politics loses its credibility.

In that respect, I believe that the democratic approach is best.  If there are multiple organizations with their own protocols and standards, that can actually be a good thing.  Maybe have each organization elect a delegate; 5 delegates if you have 5 organizations.  Call it a Council or a Congress or whateva.  That congress can vote regularly on issues that are vital to the art -- except for rank.  Rank is one of those things that people have become OCD about, and it ruins any potential for anything good.  So vote on issues that are in the best interest of the art, and then the heads of those individual orgs can show top-down leadership by acting on whatever was voted.  Do that regularly, and you might just have yourself a nice little functioning art.

_Yeah, but_ ... or ... _the only problem with that is_ ... yes, you must account for the naysayers and the like.  Truth is, a functioning society is a great thing.  But not everyone wants function.  There are plenty who thrive on dysfunction, constant flux and chronic failures.  They are usually the ones at high levels of rank, and who tend to have their loyal group of toadies, lackies and sycophants.  You will know them when you see them.

All in all though, a democratic approach in the form of a congress or council is something worth seriously considering.  I mean, there's already a void in leadership.  Why not try something that's proven?


----------

