If Mr. Parker Was Still With Us.

[marlon]

To be honest, I don't put much stock into the notion that we all need to be able to grapple like a Gracie, or compete in the octagon like an MMA guy. Sure, it's good to understand this arena of combat so you can deal with it if you find yourself swept into it. But have the Gracies sunk so low that they are the ones trying to mug me for my lunch money? Do I need to be THAT good at grappling, because Rorion is lurking in the shadows, ready to jump me? I doubt it...[/quote]


i agree completely with this statement. And, the fact of the matter is that mma is still a sport with a very big set of restrictions. Not to take anything away from those of the mma persuasion or to even hint anything negative about it

respectfully,
Marlon

 

[hongkongfooey]

If Ed Parker were alive today, he may very well be disgusted with what his art has become.

 

[LawDog]

I might have continued training in the EPAK system.

 

[KenpoDave]

If Ed Parker were alive today, he may very well be disgusted with what his art has become.

His art was evolving. If he were alive today, EPAK, as most know it, may not be.

 

[arnisador]

His art was evolving. If he were alive today, EPAK, as most know it, may not be.

That's not a very encouraging recommendation for EPAK as most know it today?

 

[Doc]

I think he would be collaberating with Jeff Speakman, looking for a younger perspective.
Does anybody know why Parker had such an untimely death? Did he not take care of his health?

Why would Parker "collaborate" with the student of one of his students?

 

[Doc]

If Ed Parker were alive today, he may very well be disgusted with what his art has become.

He was disgusted with it while he was still alive. He acknowledged commercially it was "out-of-control," and an "entity feeding upon itself." Because of these and other reasons, he spoke of creating another "tier" organization for those who wanted more.

 

[Tames D]

Why would Parker "collaborate" with the student of one of his students?

He collaborated with Speakman on 'The Perfect Weapon' as a technical advisor choreographing fight scenes. Why wouldn't he have continued to collaborate with him on other 'projects' ?

 

[Doc]

He collaborated with Speakman on 'The Perfect Weapon' as a technical advisor choreographing fight scenes. Why wouldn't he have continued to collaborate with him on other 'projects?

He didn't "collaborate" with Jeff. He set up the choreography that jeff performed. This implies a certain equality. Jeff had only been a student of Kenpo under Larry Tatum for 4 or 5 years. Doing that for a movie actor, and "collaborating" with a student of a student to determine what he might do in his art, is a bit of a reach.

Merriam-Webster defines "collaboration."

"to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor."

 

[Tames D]

He didn't "collaborate" with Jeff. He set up the choreography that jeff performed. This implies a certain equality. Jeff had only been a student of Kenpo under Larry Tatum for 4 or 5 years. Doing that for a movie actor, and "collaborating" with a student of a student to determine what he might do in his art, is a bit of a reach.

Merriam-Webster defines "collaboration."

"to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor."

So your saying Parker didn't work jointly with Speakman to develop the fight scenes?

 

[KenpoDave]

That's not a very encouraging recommendation for EPAK as most know it today?

Ed Parker, through what I have read and heard of him, does not strike me as someone who would have been content with where he was.

"This is as good as it can be, let's stop here," just doesn't seem like something he would have ever said.

It is not a slap to EPAK. It's just that innovators...well,...they innovate.

 

[Doc]

So your saying Parker didn't work jointly with Speakman to develop the fight scenes?

I apologize. English is my primary language.

 

[Tames D]

I apologize. English is my primary language.

If your going to be rude, let's take it offline.

 

[Doc]

If your going to be rude, let's take it offline.

Rude: lacking in refinement or grace, lacking civility or good manners.

First the word, "collaborate," and now "rude." It appears on the surface you tend to change the meaning of words to suit your own perspective. I simply answered the question, and asking it again will not change the answer.

 

[Tames D]

Rude: lacking in refinement or grace, lacking civility or good manners.

First the word, "collaborate," and now "rude." It appears on the surface you tend to change the meaning of words to suit your own perspective. I simply answered the question, and asking it again will not change the answer.

And in my opinion, your post was lacking in good manners. So whatever you say Doc. Speakman and Parker didn't work together on The Perfect Weapon.

 

[arnisador]

And in my opinion, your post was lacking in good manners. So whatever you say Doc. Speakman and Parker didn't work together on The Perfect Weapon.

Regardless of the sarcasm being employed ("primary language"), the fact remains that in changing collaborate to work together you have softened the meaning and hence moved the goalposts. The pitcher and the outfielder work together to win the game, but the pitcher and the catcher collaborate (to select pitches). Collaboration implies a joint effort, whereas the implication here seems to be that Mr. Parker was coaching and directing Mr. Speakman.

 

[Doc]

Rude: lacking in refinement or grace, lacking civility or good manners.

First the word, "collaborate," and now "rude." It appears on the surface you tend to change the meaning of words to suit your own perspective. I simply answered the question, and asking it again will not change the answer.

Please don't put words in my mouth sir. You can't make a point by changing the meaning of words. I'll stick with and stand by my own words, and you interpret yours own as you see fit. Either way, the question was asked and answered whether or not you accept the answer, - but you can't change my meaning. English is still my primary language.

 

[Tames D]

Regardless of the sarcasm being employed ("primary language"), the fact remains that in changing collaborate to work together you have softened the meaning and hence moved the goalposts. The pitcher and the outfielder work together to win the game, but the pitcher and the catcher collaborate (to select pitches). Collaboration implies a joint effort, whereas the implication here seems to be that Mr. Parker was coaching and directing Mr. Speakman.

I think this is a simple case of disagreement. I don't mean to get anyones panties in a bunch over incorrect terminology but I have worked on enough movies and television shows in the past 30 years to know that a Choreographer/Technical advisor will work closely with the Dancer/Fighter. In my opinion that means they are working together. My original point was that Parker worked with Speakman in the picture and because of that he might have worked with him again on other projects (whatever they may be) had he lived.

 

[jks9199]

I recall reading some interviews or other press accounts of how Parker worked with Speakman on the movie. They all strongly implied that Parker taught Speakman specific new material and shaped how Kenpo was portrayed in the movie. Nothing I recall suggested that Speakman made much of a personal contribution in how it was portrayed. Now, I'm sure, from all I've read, that Parker learned something and probably refined things by working with Speakman; any good teacher and instructor learns something from every student (even if it's only NOT to try teaching that move that way again...).

That's not collaboration; it's the technical advisor working with the actor on how to bring his imagination to the screen.

 

[terryl965]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Terry Stoker
MartialTalk Senior Moderator