The question is unanswerable--and leads to these same ratholes again and again--because it isn't a very good question. In other words, the way it's phrased, as a simple, "either/or," choice, makes it impossible to usefully discuss the matter.
In other other words, its construction as a binary opposition--a set of false alternatives, for those of you who like considering rhetorical means--guarantees that nothing is going to get said after a while: it's a dead end.
I simply don't see this as a matter of, "tradition," (dead or otherwise) vs. "innovation," (crappy or otherwise), however insistent others may be on such a construction.
More meaningful questions would include:
What are the origins of these ideas about, "tradition," and. "innovation?"
How do tradition-and-innovation function as advertising slogans in the martial arts?
To what extent has kenpo attempted to institutionalize, "innovation?" as a sort of martial arts, "permanent revolution?"
In what places, and to what purposes, do temrs such as, "tradition," and, "innovation," circulate most prominently?
How does tradition figure into innovation? How does innovation work within so-called tradition?
What is the role of the individual unconscious and its resistances to knowledge in the martial arts, and to what extent do these resistances crystallize around terms such as, "tradition," and "innovation?"
How does the figure of Mr. Parker get emplaced and circulated in contemporary discussions of martial arts?
To what extent does this sort of, "trad v. rad," discussion impose a structure of male fantasy upon the actual history of martial arts?
artyon: 
