Last night me and Jeff where working forms and he convinced be to go back and learn Short 2 on the other side. How many of you have done this? What did you think? The moves where there it was a little awkward but I liked it.

We also had a little game going he would do a form any form....then would turn around and it was my turn to do a form. It was a lot of fun and we had some pretty good discussion working out this way long 3 kicks my butt (for now!!) but it was a very good workout doing forms this way!

And HAPPY HALLOWEEN EVERYBODY!!!! Jeff has been wearing his costume all year in preperation for this day!

I do everything on both sides. It is preferable to defend with your more corodinated hand to the front but thats not always possible. Being able to use either hand with near equal profeciency increases the choices you have, which IMHO, is a very good thing.

I'm confused. What other side? I thiught the salutation for Short 2 announced that you'd be doing both right and left sides...

Now backwards, that sucks to work on.

Thanks,
Robert

Well you could choose to do one or both sides and signify with the salute as such. Some instructors might have their students always do both sides and thus would always signal as such.

I stand corrected it is an interwoven form....maybe in reverse or backwards would be more appropriate.

:asian:

There are a couple different ways that I have seen the forms taught in relation to this topic...

1.) During my training in Pasadena (under Larry Tatum, Larry Kongaika, and Frank Trejo) I was taught that the Short Forms were to be done on each side, and that the Long Forms were to be done on one side.

2.) Recently in my training at the West Los Angeles Studio (under Bryan Hawkins and Wes Idol) I was taught that Short Form One, Long Form One, Short Form Two, Long Form Two, and Short Form Three were all done on both sides for semetry. The other forms Long Form Three and beyond... are done on one side because they are semetrical forms.

3.) Dennis Conatser requires his people to do all of the forms on both sides.

I think (#2) makes the most sense to me. The semetry in the forms beyond Short Form Three makes learning it on the opposite side too redundant for my tastes, but that is just my point of view.

I was also taught that you only salute the side that you are going to perform. If you are going to do both sides, signify both sides... starting with the side you will perform first.

Hope this helps,
Billy Lear

Originally posted by WilliamTLear

There are a couple different ways that I have seen the forms taught in relation to this topic...

1.) During my training in Pasadena (under Larry Tatum, Larry Kongaika, and Frank Trejo) I was taught that the Short Forms were to be done on each side, and that the Long Forms were to be done on one side.

2.) Recently in my training at the West Los Angeles Studio (under Bryan Hawkins and Wes Idol) I was taught that Short Form One, Long Form One, Short Form Two, Long Form Two, and Short Form Three were all done on both sides for semetry. The other forms Long Form Three and beyond... are done on one side because they are semetrical forms.

3.) Dennis Conatser requires his people to do all of the forms on both sides.

I think (#2) makes the most sense to me. The semetry in the forms beyond Short Form Three makes learning it on the opposite side too redundant for my tastes, but that is just my point of view.

I was also taught that you only salute the side that you are going to perform. If you are going to do both sides, signify both sides... starting with the side you will perform first.

Hope this helps,
Billy Lear

Isn't short 2 pretty darn semetrical anyway?:confused: Also aren't almost all the movements on long 2 done on both sides anyway, seems like a duplication of effort....This is just for the sake of argument and to continue a discussion that is actually interesting and on the system.

jb

Originally posted by jbkenpo

Isn't short 2 pretty darn semetrical anyway?:confused: Also aren't almost all the movements on long 2 done on both sides anyway, seems like a duplication of effort....This is just for the sake of argument and to continue a discussion that is actually interesting and on the system.

jb

The transitions from one set to another in Short Form Two are what throw the semetry off in that form...

Long Form Two doesn't have semetry on the sets that run on the 10:30 and 1:30 angles, as well as the last set toward 12:00.

Duplication of effort? I think it is worth the practice. Here's a question for you: Why go through the trouble of learning a martial art when guns are legal in the U.S.?

Give a man a fish and he eats for a night, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

Chat with you soon,
Billy :asian:

Short two has symmetry, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit from doing the form off the B side. For example, if you just do the form off the A side, there's no transition from a left handsword to a right inward block. That might be what Billy was referring to when he mentioned transitions, I'm not sure.

Rich

Originally posted by WilliamTLear

The transitions from one set to another in Short Form Two are what throw the semetry off in that form...



The transitions where? after the nip the tip move or middle knuckle (whichever you use)...It seems to me you do 12,12, 9,3,6,12,4:30,7:30,1:30,10:30 each side alternating so your doing right and left.

Long Form Two doesn't have semetry on the sets that run on the 10:30 and 1:30 angles, as well as the last set toward 12:00.

For me semetry isn't that big of an issue in this regard, each concept is executed on both sides, except the advancing and retreating movements toward the end of the form....

Duplication of effort? I think it is worth the practice. Here's a question for you: Why go through the trouble of learning a martial art when guns are legal in the U.S.?

Well, even if I decided to go the gun route I'd still get some form of martial training in that regard. By the way how far does a person have to be away from you before you can full extent your weapon and discharge? Just how quickly can a person close in on you and nullify your little concealed weapon gun permit? You know the stats.


Give a man a fish and he eats for a night, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

Spoken like a true Kenpo man, always fall back on something you know....food...:rofl:

Actually, a good quote and a possible argument for teaching concepts verses techniques....but that's for another discussion.

Your turn, jb:asian:

Originally posted by SingingTiger

Short two has symmetry, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit from doing the form off the B side. For example, if you just do the form off the A side, there's no transition from a left handsword to a right inward block. That might be what Billy was referring to when he mentioned transitions, I'm not sure.

Rich

I don't understand what you mean....but there's benefit in any excuse to practice the art.

jb

I didn't say moves... I said transitions when I was speaking of Short Form Two... Little bit of a difference there... Sorry that you don't get it...

[i]Originally Posted By: jbkenpo

Spoken like a true Kenpo man, always fall back on something you know....food...

Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about when it involves Kenpo.

[i]Originally Posted By: jbkenpo

Just how quickly can a person close in on you and nullify your little concealed weapon gun permit?

You really wanna know? :shrug:

I've talked to many Kenpo Seniors about the issue of doing both sides of the forms and why... You seem like you have all the answers though, so I will shut up and let you have your fun.

Happy Halloween,
Billy Lear

Billy,
When you said all short forms are performed on both sides did you mean short three also? Doesnt long three cover this somewhat? I know there are different tech's like glancing spear and parting wings in there which might make a difference. Sounds like a challenge to do it this way might be worth a shot but i have never done it.

Thanks for any input

Bam Bam

Originally posted by WilliamTLear

I didn't say moves... I said transitions when I was speaking of Short Form Two... Little bit of a difference there... Sorry that you don't get it...



Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about when it involves Kenpo.



You really wanna know? :shrug:

I've talked to many Kenpo Seniors about the issue of doing both sides of the forms and why... You seem like you have all the answers though, so I will shut up and let you have your fun.

Happy Halloween,
Billy Lear

Man,

Billy can't I play without getting into trouble or what...I know where your coming from and your background and the company you keep...I'd never imply you didn't know what your talking about. My bad for trying to input some levity. (I put :rofl: when I'm just joking because I thought it implies that the comment isn't to be taken seriously)

I agree there is nothing wrong with doing both sides...I mentioned it at the beginning, "for the sake of argument and discussion" I'd attempt to make some arguements against.

I don't have all or even a few of the answers (even if I act like I do, it certainly doesn't mean I'm right), but I figured I could get some insight playing the heal...that's all dude.

Relax...you've been in battle mode too long. I'm just doing some intellectual sparring with ya. Hell, we're friends we don't even need pads. Nothing serious, just exploring. I guess I will take a break, maybe my typing fingers are a little too heavy for my own good. I'd rather maintain good relationships with my people and just show what I know on the mat (even if mine is in Texas and yours is in the Mecca). I'll IM ya later or give you a call at some point...

later, jb

p.s. I still can't understand you transitions comment, the internet often cannot convey things with clarity, including the spirit that my previous post was sent with... :(

Originally posted by WilliamTLear

There are a couple different ways that I have seen the forms taught in relation to this topic...

2.) Recently in my training at the West Los Angeles Studio (under Bryan Hawkins and Wes Idol) I was taught that Short Form One, Long Form One, Short Form Two, Long Form Two, and Short Form Three were all done on both sides for semetry. The other forms Long Form Three and beyond... are done on one side because they are semetrical forms.

Billy Lear

All excellent comments as usual Billy, I think we are required by Mr. Duffy to follow 2.) above.

Originally posted by brianhunter
I stand corrected it is an interwoven form....maybe in reverse or backwards would be more appropriate.

If I'm thinking clearly about Opposite and Reverse, Brian I think you meant the "Opposite" side.

Now I'm going to have to go ask Mr. Duffy about all this to make certain.

PS Lighten up Billy, Jason meant no disrespect I think you took his post wrong and I know you guys will straighten it out. I see Jason has already brought this to your attention. Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, ... :rofl:
:asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo

I don't understand what you mean

There is symmetry in short two, in that you perform a right inward block stepping forward with the right foot, followed by a right handsword, and you also perform a left inward block stepping forward with the left foot, followed by a left handsword. The same movement off both sides, hence the symmetry.

However, if you only perform the kata off the A side (stepping forward with the right foot first), you transition from a right handsword to a left inward block, but you never transition from a left handsword to a right inward block. Hence the lack of symmetry, at least as far as transitions go. If you perform the kata off the B side, you will have the transition from a left handsword to a right inward block, but not the transition from a right handsword to a left inward block. So if you perform the kata off both the A and B sides, you have a more comprehensive symmetry (for lack of a better term). Several of the rest of the moves fall into the same category.

Certainly, this isn't a big deal, but I don't think it's trivial, either. I think that one should be able to transition from any one stance/position to any other stance/position equally well on both sides, and performing the kata off both sides might help solidify that ability.

NOTE: I'm not at an AK school, so I might not be doing short two exactly as you are. But what we do pretty much matches Parker's description in "Infinite Insights, volume 5," so I'm guessing we're talking about pretty much the same thing.

Rich

Singing Tiger,

You got it brother... You're interpretation of my statement is correct... and yes, it makes little difference if you ask me, but for the sake of good practice we do it on both sides.

Hasta,
Billy Lear

Originally posted by SingingTiger

There is symmetry in short two, in that you perform a right inward block stepping forward with the right foot, followed by a right handsword, and you also perform a left inward block stepping forward with the left foot, followed by a left handsword. The same movement off both sides, hence the symmetry.

However, if you only perform the kata off the A side (stepping forward with the right foot first), you transition from a right handsword to a left inward block, but you never transition from a left handsword to a right inward block. Hence the lack of symmetry, at least as far as transitions go. If you perform the kata off the B side, you will have the transition from a left handsword to a right inward block, but not the transition from a right handsword to a left inward block. So if you perform the kata off both the A and B sides, you have a more comprehensive symmetry (for lack of a better term). Several of the rest of the moves fall into the same category.

Certainly, this isn't a big deal, but I don't think it's trivial, either. I think that one should be able to transition from any one stance/position to any other stance/position equally well on both sides, and performing the kata off both sides might help solidify that ability.

NOTE: I'm not at an AK school, so I might not be doing short two exactly as you are. But what we do pretty much matches Parker's description in "Infinite Insights, volume 5," so I'm guessing we're talking about pretty much the same thing.

Rich

ok,

If that's what he meant then I gotcha...Something that you could have shown me in 2 seconds takes mutiple paragraphs to convey so I can understand what your referring to. Isn't the net grand...

Originally Posted By: Jason Bugg

Billy can't I play without getting into trouble or what...I know where your coming from and your background and the company you keep...I'd never imply you didn't know what your talking about. My bad for trying to input some levity. (I put when I'm just joking because I thought it implies that the comment isn't to be taken seriously)

You're not in trouble. And... I know that you know that I know what you know. (follow me on that one?) ;)

Originally Posted By: Jason Bugg

I agree there is nothing wrong with doing both sides...I mentioned it at the beginning, "for the sake of argument and discussion" I'd attempt to make some arguements against.

I'd rather go fishing than argue for the sake of an arguement.

Originally Posted By: Jason Bugg

I don't have all or even a few of the answers (even if I act like I do, it certainly doesn't mean I'm right), but I figured I could get some insight playing the heal...that's all dude.

Actually, it looks like you did a pretty good job of making me look like the heel, and I sure did a good job of stepping in it for ya'll. :rofl:

Jason... you're okay in my book... I'm putting down the keyboard, and stepping away from the computer... Bad Billay!!! Bad!!! No more violent video games for you!!!

Your Friend,
Billy "If it bleeds we can kill it..." Lear

Originally posted by brianhunter

Billy,
When you said all short forms are performed on both sides did you mean short three also? Doesnt long three cover this somewhat? I know there are different tech's like glancing spear and parting wings in there which might make a difference. Sounds like a challenge to do it this way might be worth a shot but i have never done it.

Thanks for any input

Bam Bam

Long Three doens't cover it all... Short Three has some techs that aren't in Long Three and vise versa...

Give it a try, the worst that can happen is that you might learn something (even if that something is not liking to do it on the other side... LOL!)

Hasta,
Billy Lear :asian:

Originally posted by jbkenpo

Something that you could have shown me in 2 seconds takes mutiple paragraphs to convey so I can understand what your referring to. Isn't the net grand...

I don't mind typing long, involved descriptions. The exercise keeps my brain up and running. But I know what you mean.

For me, the worst part about conversations like this is the fact that it's almost impossible for the writer to convey "tone" in a post. Witness the exchange earlier in this very thread. It took me several heated e-mail and bulletin board exchanges several years ago before I learned to hold off on accusing somebody of accusing me of something until they actually said, "you are XYZ," or something similar.

Aside from that, yeah, the 'net's great. :)

Rich

I'm still not getting it.

First off, the forms are done on both sides already. Are we talking about starting by stepping left first, and then proceeding?
If we are, I still don't see what the point is. Yes, yes, symmetry. But what exactly does that mean? I keep reading, here and elsewhere, that Symmetry Is A Good Thing. OK, in general terms I agree. But specifically why? Isn't this just a bit of Orientalism, a notion that's at least as much about a fantasy of Eastern philosophy ("You must balance you chi, grasshopper..."), as anything else?

I might also note that American kenpo sure looks right-handed to me. But beyond that argument, how 'bout this one: assuming that symmetry is a valuable goal, what's the best way to teach it? I was taught that you have to respect the level that you're on, that the too-early pursuit of some things in martial arts--here, symmetry--is bad for you. Ain't this why students wear their belt knots to one side?

What's the big rush? Why not just let symmetry brew a bit, and really get worked on in the higher-order forms? Isn't that fairly-explicitly a goal of Long 6?

There are asymmetries built in everywhere in kenpo: Kicking Set 1's third side, those elbows in Long 1...maybe they're there for a reason.

Oh, and one last sneaky question: is it really a good thing for instructors to map out everything for students? Is it possible that those asymmetries are there precisely as a trail of bread crumbs for students to follow?

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Robert

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I'm still not getting it.

First off, the forms are done on both sides already. Are we talking about starting by stepping left first, and then proceeding?

Yes.

If we are, I still don't see what the point is. Yes, yes, symmetry. But what exactly does that mean? I keep reading, here and elsewhere, that Symmetry Is A Good Thing. OK, in general terms I agree. But specifically why?

Well, as I said earlier, I personally think it's as important to be able to transition from stance A to stance B from right to left as it is to be able to transition from stance A to stance B from left to right. Your mileage may vary.

I was taught that you have to respect the level that you're on, that the too-early pursuit of some things in martial arts--here, symmetry--is bad for you. Ain't this why students wear their belt knots to one side?

At my school we only wear our belts to one side when we're doing pushups, but I think your point is well-taken. Although I'm making the argument for performing short two off both sides, I haven't actually started doing it. Short one is the only kata that I've started doing off both sides -- and I might add that I think it's been helpful. I imagine that sometime in the future -- probably the near future, just because of this discussion -- I'll start doing short two off both sides. I'll probably start doing long one off both sides, but I expect I'll screw that one up a lot along the way.

Oh, and one last sneaky question: is it really a good thing for instructors to map out everything for students? Is it possible that those asymmetries are there precisely as a trail of bread crumbs for students to follow?

Interesting question. Personally, I think it needs to be answered differently for every student/teacher pair. It's up to the teacher to determine how curious and likely to follow bread crumbs the student is.

Rich

Uh...apologies, but now I'm really lost. Long 1 off both sides? I already do Long 1 off both sides, just by doing both sides of the form, and so does everybody else...I'm really just not getting this.

Honest, I'm not being disingenuous. In proof of which, let me offer a couple of disagreements, so it won't be a case of trying to hide them...

First, kenpo is in fact "right-handed." Apparently, this bias is built in pretty deeply, and rests on a) some rather old notions about masculinity and femininity integral to the Chinese arts and their underlying philosophies; b) some ideas Mr. Parker and others had about the way human beings are wired up; c) some ideas about the most effective forms of dself-defense; d) some ideas about the best ways to teach students to bring the two sides of the body into something like harmony.

Second: I still say that introducing students to some concepts and principles and motions prematurely is a mistake--for pretty much the same reasons Freud talked about in the "Dora," case; it shows a lot more of the analyst showing off than real help, and it actually creates roadblocks for the student. I just don't get why folks who were taught Mr. Parker's system, and for whom it obviously worked pretty darn well as a teaching system, have to jack around with the system when they teach their students. I guess it's just my hobbyhorse this fall, but I detect a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle sabotage of students going on when I rush them into things they're not ready for.

Third: assuming that this symmetry stuff is good, even as early as a student's learning Short 2 for the first time, I don't see how starting with your left foot is any more symmetrical than simply doing the form the way it's written. That way, you start with the strong right, then move to the "weaker," left."

And again, why is it, "more symmetrical," to start with the left? There's some point here that I'm just not getting...

Again, thanks for an interesting discussion.
Robert

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Uh...apologies, but now I'm really lost. Long 1 off both sides? I already do Long 1 off both sides, just by doing both sides of the form, and so does everybody else

Well, I'm not sure who "everybody" includes, but it doesn't include me. When I perform long one, I:

1. Step back with my left foot as I throw a right inward block;
2. Move into a forward bow with a left punch;
3. Step back with my right foot into a cat as I throw another right inward block;
4. Step back with my right foot as I throw a left inward block;
etc.

I never start the form by stepping back with my right foot (which would constitute performing the kata "off the B side," as instructors at my school say). Since I'm not at an AK school, this may just be a difference of curriculum, but long one as described by Mr. Parker in "Infinite Insights, volume 5," always begins with stepping back with the left foot, so I'm assuming that the requirement or desire to perform long one off both sides is a school-based, instructor-based, or student-based decision.

I'm really just not getting this.

You can perform the kata as choreographed, or you can perform it as a mirror image of the way it was choreographed. If you do both, you are performing the kata "off both sides." I'm not sure how else to put it.

Honest, I'm not being disingenuous.

I believe you, and I'm taking no offense at your questions. :)

I still say that introducing students to some concepts and principles and motions prematurely is a mistake

I don't disagree with that general argument. In each specific case, I think it depends on how you define "prematurely." I just learned short two a few months ago, and I don't think it would be wise of me to start learning it off the other side right now, before I've had a chance to do it about a thousand times the way I learned it. I might walk through it a few times, just because we've been having this discussion, but I don't think I should try to perfect it off both sides yet (as much as you can ever "perfect" a kata).

In the case of symmetry in general, I'm not sure how you would define "prematurely" such that it would be a bad idea to start teaching the concept at that point. In my first lesson, I learned a right inward block and I learned a left inward block. There's a certain amount of symmetry already.

That way, you start with the strong right, then move to the "weaker," left."

But that's a great argument in favor of learning to perform the kata off the other side: a situation might require you to move from your "weaker" side to your stronger, instead of the other way around. Having learned how to make the transitions in both directions would make such a situation easier to deal with.

And again, why is it, "more symmetrical," to start with the left? There's some point here that I'm just not getting...

I think the sticking point is in the addition of the word "more," although I guess an argument could be made that that's a logical extension of a phrase such as, "adding a certain symmetry."

How's this:

Learning how to perform short two as written teaches the student how to perform certain movements correctly. Each movement is repeated on both the right and left sides, but each movement transitions into the next movement in a certain way. Learning to perform a mirror image (i.e., symmetric) variation of short two will not teach the student any new movements, since both right and left sides are included for every movement in the kata as written, but it will teach the student how to transition from one movement into the next movement in a different (i.e., opposite) way from the way the same transition happens in the kata as written.

It's a little wordy, but I'm just trying to be clear. It's not that performing the kata off the other side is "more symmetrical," it's just that, while there are no movements (e.g., handsword, upward block, etc.) that are not repeated on both sides in the kata as written, there are transitions that are not repeated on both sides, and performing the kata off the other side will introduce those transitions.

Rich

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


I might also note that American kenpo sure looks right-handed to me.

It is my opinion that kenpo shoudn't be right or left handed but rather that each student should learn at first to defend with their more corordinated hand to the front. For the vast majority of people this will be the right hand. However, 10% this will be the left. If I had a school I would teach left handed students all of the yellow belt techniques on the "left" side to begin with. Being able to do them with equal skill on the right side would be one of the requironments for orange. I'd probably also teach orange on the left first and then switch at purple.

Just my thughts...

okay...someone help me because now I am very confused!!! I thought most of the forms (like short 3) were interwoven.....I thought both sides where in most the forms.

If you do a form take short 2 starting with the left I thought you where just doing the form in opposite not the other side.

It may just be friday and I could still be suffering from my concussion but someone help me out here!

Originally posted by cdhall

I think you took his post wrong and I know you guys will straighten it out. [/B]

We caught up today on the IM....it's all good.

jb:asian:

Originally posted by brianhunter

If you do a form take short 2 starting with the left I thought you where just doing the form in opposite not the other side.

It's just a matter of semantics. If someone refers to performing short two "off the other side," they're not implying that they're only using their right arm while their left arm dangles at their side the whole time. They're just starting with the left foot moving forward and proceeding to perform a mirror image of the kata as written.

Rich

Second: I still say that introducing students to some concepts and principles and motions prematurely is a mistake--for pretty much the same reasons Freud talked about in the "Dora," case; it shows a lot more of the analyst showing off than real help, and it actually creates roadblocks for the student. I just don't get why folks who were taught Mr. Parker's system, and for whom it obviously worked pretty darn well as a teaching system, have to jack around with the system when they teach their students. I guess it's just my hobbyhorse this fall, but I detect a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle sabotage of students going on when I rush them into things they're not ready for.

Another excellent discussion topic. It seems to me that there are just different schools of thought on this. Particularly outside of Kenpo. Some folks feel an agressor won't wait until you make a higher rank before they decide to stick you with a knife or hold you up with a gun. I think I however understand your argument, a yellow belt is a yellow belt...in all their uncoordinated glory and no amount of awareness or additional insight is going to make them any more prepared than the years of drills and training.

I know some (non-Kenpo) have moved toward rote movements to allow a person to survive the initial attack. Tony Blauer's SPEAR system seems to do that. He does a sort of wedge thing that has universal applications within his system.

The other school of thought presents defenses against zone attacks in an effort to simplify the answers to any self defense question that might come up.

Anyway, this sort of makes its way back to the feed a man a fish deal...which should be emphasized, basics and techniques or basics and concepts?

Just some thoughts, jb:asian:

Nope. Not gettin' the symmetry thing. Here are my disagreements:

1) How does the second side of Long 1 start, in the form as laid out in "Inf. Insights?" By stepping back with the right foot while blocking with the left...so why's it helpful to do this at the start instead?

2) While it's vital (and I don't do enough of it) to adapt and tailor the system at higher levels, I still disagree with changing Mr. Parker's basic system without some really good reasons...really, really good reasons. Among my other reasons: I can see that students taught the ten yellow techniques first--and they are decidedly asymmetrical--progress faster and stronger at higher levels. Hm.

3) The salutations for Short 1, Short 2, Long 1...well, you get it...all assert that both sides are going to be done. It's just that in the early forms, the two are kept separate, to be integrated later. (Incidentally, I think this is exactly why students should wear their belt knot to one side...I still do, having been reminded by Cliff Seminerio a couple years back, when Mr. Tatum's teaching.) When teaching kenpo, the basic concepts and principles of the system have to be taught and demonstrated to the student on every level, including all the picayune stuff.

4) In Short Form 1, those first two inward blocks aren't symmetrical. The first hammers, the second thrusts.

5) Mr. Tatum argues that there's no need to "learn techniques on both sides." Examples: Delayed Sword, and Five Swords, work equally well in their original form against left-handed attacks. Further, here's another question he raises: will a beginner use their left instinctively? or their right?

6) I suppose the transitions are different, but these asymmetries are integral to the system. Any chance there's a reason? beyond 1950s prejudice against lefties, I mean.

7) Why is symmetry good in and of itself? If we're arguing it's, "more natural," in some fashion--well, the human body isn't symmetrical. Further: doesn't "category completion," suggest a higher order of symmetry than just movement?

8) There's more at stake than a student's being right or left handed. In a sense, the world is right handed--should we teach people to launch left-handed defenses, when nearly all attackers favor their right? Isn't this why kenpo has so many defenses against right hands?

9) Thanks Ahura-mazda. Brian Hunter is as confused as I am. Thought I was losing my tiny.

10) Chopped-down, "systems," (and I argue that they aren't real systems, just a set of no doubt very effective techniques) like SPEAR and Krav Maga chop out most of the higher functions of martial arts. They're great and effective, I have no doubt, presuming good teachers and good students. But they're more like buying a gun than they are like studying a martial art: they're prefab technologies, with all the advantages and disadvantages this implies. Doesn't this society give people enough powwer without responsibility? If this sounds a little high-and-mighty, try this: all such systems, I've come to think, are subsets of kenpo. Everything I've seen in them can be pulled out of what Mr. Parker assembled. But I do not think this works the other way around...there's an asymmetry for you.

Hm. Thanks for the brain food, guys and gals.
Robert

what about lefties? What do we (you guys) teach them? Do you try to force them to become righties, do you reverse all the techniques, do we just say "good luck with developing your right side to the level it will take to defend yourself," or is there some middle ground for them? As someone who has always strived for ambidexterity, I like the idea of learning both sides, even if it is just a philosophical appraoch. But for other students, what is the plan?

warriorsage see my post somewhere on page 2... Does that help?

Originally posted by warriorsage

what about lefties? What do we (you guys) teach them? Do you try to force them to become righties, do you reverse all the techniques, do we just say "good luck with developing your right side to the level it will take to defend yourself," or is there some middle ground for them? As someone who has always strived for ambidexterity, I like the idea of learning both sides, even if it is just a philosophical appraoch. But for other students, what is the plan?

Its not really that kenpo itself is geared towards people who are right handed, its that most of the techniques defend against attacks that are likely to come from right handed people...I think...I could be wrong.

I'll never be one to try and say that I know the system inside and out, but...

I really think the defenses are geared for a right-handed person and not mainly the attacks. Many of the attacks feature left punches, left grabs, left ___, etc. True, a left grab may be done only to allow the right punch to follow, but I doubt any righties would attack with a step through left hooking punch. (ARrgh!! the step through punch, that's another topic of debate.)

I find that the majority of our retaliatory efforts are right-side dominant. Even when your left side is forward, the main strikes or kicks seem to be right. I realize this isn't a major breakthrough, just my observation. I agree with the elfster, that a left-handed person should be taught the opposite techniques from the start to give them a better chance for survival earlier in the game.

I agree that the system is right-side dominant.

To me, the question is: is the a product of prejudice, or history, or reality?

I think it works as right side dominant very well indeed. Question is, why?

Robert

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Nope. Not gettin' the symmetry thing. Here are my disagreements:

We don't disagree on everything, but on the things we do disagree on, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Here's my attempt at killing the horse; I won't mind continuing to beat it for another post or two, if you're having fun with the conversation, and I won't mind stopping either. I hate to do all the quoting, but I'm afraid that with so many points there'll be too much scrolling if I don't. For those that are already bored, this is going to be one loooong post.

1) How does the second side of Long 1 start, in the form as laid out in "Inf. Insights?" By stepping back with the right foot while blocking with the left...so why's it helpful to do this at the start instead?

For one thing, because you'll learn how to move back from a left cat (if that's the correct term) into a right neutral bow as you execute a right inward block. You never do that if you only perform the kata as written. That's just one example of a transition that exists in a mirror image of the kata as written that doesn't exist in the kata as written. Is this a big deal? No. But, as I said earlier, I don't think it's trivial, either.

2) While it's vital (and I don't do enough of it) to adapt and tailor the system at higher levels, I still disagree with changing Mr. Parker's basic system without some really good reasons...really, really good reasons.

I don't disagree. I guess where we disagree here is in classifying the ability to perform Short 2 off both sides as a "change." I find it hard to imagine that the following conversation could take place if Mr. Parker was alive today:

Me: "Mr. Parker, I've noticed that when Short 2 is performed, there is a transition from a right neutral bow/right handsword into a left neutral bow/left inward block, but there's never a transition from a left neutral bow/left handsword into a right neutral bow/right inward block. I was thinking that if I perform the kata off the other side -- starting out with my left foot instead of my right -- I'll get that transition, so I'd like to start doing the kata off both sides."

Ed Parker: "It's important to be able to transition from a right neutral bow/right handsword into a left neutral bow/left inward block, but it's not important to be able to transition from a left neutral bow/left handsword into a right neutral bow/right inward block, so you shouldn't do that."
or
Ed Parker: "Transitions are unimportant, so you shouldn't do that."
or
Ed Parker: "Don't mess with my system!"

Maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine any response other than, "There's no harm in being able to perform the kata off both sides, and it might even make you more comfortable with certain stance transitions." At worst, I can see a caution about "biting off more than you can chew," but that wouldn't argue against doing it, it would simply raise the "when" issue.

3) The salutations for Short 1, Short 2, Long 1...well, you get it...all assert that both sides are going to be done. It's just that in the early forms, the two are kept separate, to be integrated later.

I don't understand this. First, we don't do salutations on the lower level forms (as I mentioned, I'm not at an AK school). Second, if Short 2 (for example) as written is done using "both sides," how would this form be performed using only one side? Your left arm just stays at the belt?

4) In Short Form 1, those first two inward blocks aren't symmetrical. The first hammers, the second thrusts.

We don't differentiate at my school, and there's no difference in the description in "II,v.5". Maybe Ed Parker modified the form later, or passed it on verbally in a way different than how he wrote it, or maybe it's just a difference in teaching styles.

5) Mr. Tatum argues that there's no need to "learn techniques on both sides."

I have no doubt that one can attain Kenpo greatness without performing katas or techniques off both sides. But arguing against a need is different than arguing that doing so would be improper, impractical, or detrimental in some other way.

6) I suppose the transitions are different, but these asymmetries are integral to the system. Any chance there's a reason?

Sure. I'm open to hearing some.

7) Why is symmetry good in and of itself?

I'm not sure that it is. I'm just having a hard time coming up with a reason why being able to do something with my left side as well as I do it with my right side is a bad thing.

8) There's more at stake than a student's being right or left handed.

Sure. For me, what's at stake is my ability to respond to any situation, no matter what position I'm in at the time. Again, I can't see a downside to practicing transitions off both sides, and since the forms are good on one side, using them for the other seems like a reasonable way to gain that ability.

9) Thanks Ahura-mazda.

Hmmm. Sounds like some kind of car god. :)

10) ...Everything I've seen in them can be pulled out of what Mr. Parker assembled. But I do not think this works the other way around...there's an asymmetry for you.

I don't think anybody's arguing that if you lost your right thumb in a combine accident you should cut off your left thumb just to be symmetrical. So I guess my updated answer to your #7 above is, "no, symmetry (in all things) is not good in and of itself." But we're only talking about one example of how gaining symmetry might -- or might not -- be beneficial.

Thanks for the brain food, guys and gals.

Likewise! Sorry for the lengthy post.

Rich

Ummm..please don't be excessively offended (some is OK), but what you're describing is wrong. No, not different--wrong.

Let me focus on your mention of not doing the salutations in the "lower" forms, and not differentiating between the inward blocks at the start of Short Form 1.

First, when these "pointless formalities," are omitted, we're chopping out vital markers of the way the system works. Here, we'd be editing out EXACTLY the relation betweeen asymmetry and symmetry. Second, the fact is that those two first blocks in Short 1 simply aren't the same sorts of blocks. Among other things, the body is not positioned in the same way for both.

Uh..have you done both sides of Long 1? The left side begins like this: from a meditating horse stance, step back to 6:00 with your right foot, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously performing a left inward block and bringing your right elbow back. Then, slide your left foot back into a left 45 cat, while performing a left inward block/right back elbow, and continue back into a right neutral bow. Execute a left reverse punch and...

I am sorry, but your description of Long 1 is incorrect. Precisely as written, Long 1's second side requires a transition from a left cat to a right neurtral bow.

It isn't a difference of opinion, I'm afraid. The moves you say aren't in Long 1 are very much a part of the form...unless I'm hallucinating. And I'm not.

Again, I really apologize if I'm being rude. But if you were taught that there's no step back from a left cat to a right neutral bow in Long 1, you were taught wrong. I've been doing the left side of the form again and again, and re-reading your post, because I keep thinking it's me...but it's not me.

Ask Brian. I'm baffled.

Thanks,
Robert

PS. How do you do Coordination Set 1?

Ooop, wait, I got it.

If you look at "Infinite Insights," it only shows the right side of the form. it isn't uncommon (Short 3 is a worse example) to be taught the right side, and told simply to figure out the left.

But the form inherently has two sides. If one is working on blue, the right will commonly be taught first, then the left.

You might also want to scope out pages 22-24, "Inf. Insights," vol. 5. I'd check out the discussion of what's taught/not taught, in order, "to eliminate confusion and not to cloud the mind of a beginner." Also see the end of the first paragraph on pg. 24, which notes that the salutation is for the right side--and suggests that there's also a left side. This is very much in keeping with the general tendency to lead students right up to the brink of insight in kenpo...but no further.

My mistake. For one reason or another, you simply haven't been taught the other side of the form, or even that it's already there. You're reinventing the wheel, which (again, sorry) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in this case. It's what you should be doing.

Wait'll you get to figuring out that the closing uppercut of the right side turns into the inward block of the left. That took me six years (no, I'm not kidding), and when I mentioned Bob's Big Discovery to Mr. tatum, he looked at me with a distinctly-pitying look in the eye...

Thanks,
Robert

I think you guys are miscommunicating on some points. However, I do agree and have taught for years (very successfully & with Mr. Parkers personal support - I might add) the usefulness of performing or training "both" sides of forms and for that matter techniques. We have had a long string on this very topic before here.

I agree with Rich that there are many benefits to practicing "both sides" or at the very least it is an additional form of training that one can do. If it is a question of whether we "HAVE TO" or not to gain benefit from Kenpo well then I agree that NO it is not a HAVE to but I have personally felt the difference myself and choose to do it.

If Robert or his instructor chooses NOT to ... that's ok too, for them, they just choose to do other drills or exercises. However, it can also be said that if one "DOES DO" both sides there is no harm either (I personally feel that it is better), and I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

As far as the discussion on Left and Right in Long Form 1 goes on the first side you step back with your left leg and do a right hammering block to start then slide thru a "right" cat while executing a right inward block during the transition. You do not duplicate this maneuver on the opposite side unless you do the 2nd side of the form. I think this is what Rich is talking about and Robert you for some reason are missing what he is saying.

As to the 2 different types of Inward Blocks used .... Robert is correct in what he is pointing out, but I must admit not a whole lot of people know of this (sadly). The first inward block is hammering due to initial positioning and the second is thrusting due to the positioning of the hands. This is also true for short form 1.

:asian:

Hey, how 'bout them Angels!

"Hey, how 'bout them Angels!"

Hey DC, I grew up with Garrett Anderson (he was a summertime resident of our city, lived around the corner). The Giants could've used my knowledge of how to pitch to him. Oh wait, that was only good in wiffle ball, and that was 15 years ago...

You should have called Dusty! Wiffle or not that could have helped them LOL

:asian:

I partly agree. It dawned on me that some of the conversants simply hadn't learned the second side of Long 1, about the time I was into arguing. Which is why I said, "Oops."

However, I still don't see why it's necessary to begin Long 1--or any other form--with the left side first. It'll come along in its own good time,

Moreover, the whole system--from the moment of the first lesson, in which a neophyte steps out with their left foot into a horse stance (hm. There's an interesting argument), or back with the left to start Delayed Sword--emphasizes that right side. Why jack around with that?

I also agree that the argument's been had before, especially with regard to running the techniques on both sides. Sure, OK.

But do we actually know whether or not this helps? I know for a fact--at least based on my experience, always a bit shaky ground--that teaching the kenpo system right-side dominant works. Do we know that teaching both sides works? How? Were folks with 20+ years of experience taught this way? If not, how were they taught?

I also really question this whole "symmetry," business, as I've already noted. Not in the sense that it's wrong, but that I want to see the rationale for it. I think we're simply accepting symmetry as a goal, without thinking about the reasons. More important than that, possibly--and I'll try to put this in a way that indicates my own stick-in-the-mud quality as much as anything else--I don't hold with this newfangled kenpo teachin'.

I can't say that I really know how kenpo was "traditionally," taught--does anybody? But I can say that some of the stuff I've seen at tournaments, especially with regard to forms, is just plain silly. There's a lot of improvisation out there, and it's coming from folks who don't even know what the hell it is that they're changing. Change, by all means: I wish I were better at that. But know what the base is, first.

It's the same stuff I tell my writing students. First, finally there are no rules in writing. You can do whatever you want on a page, provided that a) you let the reader in on what you're doing in some fashion; b) you're doing something that makes sense; c) you understand what it is that you're doing; d) you play by the rules you've established; e) it works on good readers. It isn't that I oppose changing things, particularly since we're not altogether sure what the "original," kenpo system aand its teaching methods were. But I am against changing things just for the sake of changing them, particularly by folks who don't know what they're changing.


I ran into a good example of this on kenponet last wekk. Somebody wrote in to say that they'd done Long 4 at a tournament, and really well, apparently, because a judge came up and said that they form was beautifully done, but wrong. Why? They'd been taught to do all the techniques oriented to 6:00 (Circling Windmills, Defensive Cross, etc.) oriented to 12:00, so the judges could see it better. What's wrong with this? beyond the fact that I dislike the whole idea of changing the forms just to win a little trophy, the really important thing is that the student had no idea that they'd been taught the form in a changed fashion.

They did not know the original form. They thought that the orientation to 12:00 was correct. They did not know that it'd been changed, and they had no idea why it had been changed.

Talk about symmetry? How 'bout teaching students to look behind them in a fight?

Anyway, thanks for the arguments. It's a real pleasure to discuss this material, without some bozo hurling insults because we aren't saying what they want to hear.

Sincerely,
Robert

No, not different--wrong.

Thanks for the tip.

As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm not at an EPAK school. My understanding is that our curriculum is basically the original material that Ed Parker started with, along with some modifications when the school was purchased thirty years ago by someone who had gone through a Tracy's program. The current owner is not interested in the political ramifications of being a part of a large organization, and seeing some of the comments in various threads in this forum, I can't say I blame him.

I've been arguing a couple of points about forms, simply because the forms that we do -- at least up through Short 2, and possibly the higher forms as well -- are very similar, if not identical, to the forms taught at EPAK schools. But that doesn't mean that what is taught at EPAK schools is "right," and what is taught at my school is "wrong," contrary to what you might believe. If I claimed to be studying at an EPAK school and insisted that there was no difference between the first two blocks in Short 1 (for example), you might very well be able to claim that I was wrong, and Mr. Conatser would apparently back you up on that. I hope that I haven't accidentally given the impression that I'm claiming to be studying something that I'm not by the nature of the arguments that I've been making, that was never my intention. If you're up for a discussion of the wisdom of studying at an EPAK school vs. studying at a non-EPAK school I might be up for it, depending on what else was going on, but I think you'll agree that that discussion might be better suited to a different thread.

You're reinventing the wheel, which (again, sorry) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in this case.

When you mentioned the salutation, and I looked it up in "II,v.5", I suspected that we may have been arguing a non-issue all along. Although the form is only described off one side, the salutation as written would certainly indicate that it can and should be performed off both sides. At my school, we start doing Short 1 off the B side a belt or two above where we learned it, and I suspect the same is true for the other forms as well.

As far as the salutation goes, I see you're point, but this falls into that "right" and "wrong" difference I mentioned earlier. By the way, I never referred to the salutation as a "pointless formality," and I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I had when you enclosed the phrase in quotation marks.

How do you do Coordination Set 1?

I don't, and I don't recall seeing it mentioned on any of the belt charts. I'll look for it this morning.

Again, I really apologize if I'm being rude. But...

I only took the small amount of offense that you afforded me at the beginning of your post. :) But one thing you might want to remember is that when someone offers an apology that starts with, "I'm sorry, but...", the only thing that's really being offered is what comes after the "but."

Thanks to Mr. Conatser for clarifying the Long 1 issue. The interpretation of my description was accurate.

the closing uppercut of the right side turns into the inward block of the left

Where is this? The end of Long 1?

Rich

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I agree that the system is right-side dominant.

To me, the question is: is the a product of prejudice, or history, or reality?

I think it works as right side dominant very well indeed. Question is, why?

Robert

I think you've almost answered your own question. If 90% of people are right handed then a right hand dominant system will work best for 90% of the people. It’s not some anti lefty prejudice but rather a simple reality of making a curriculum for a large number of people to use. If I want to make a system that is most useful to the most people then by necessity the base curriculum will be right hand dominant.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I partly agree. It dawned on me that some of the conversants simply hadn't learned the second side of Long 1, about the time I was into arguing. Which is why I said, "Oops."
Sincerely, Robert

Thank you for the recant.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
However, I still don't see why it's necessary to begin Long 1--or any other form--with the left side first. It'll come along in its own good time.
Sincerely, Robert

Well, as I personally have stated before - it is not a "necessity" to begin the form with the left side first but rather an OPTION to "reverse the order" from what we do normally as a mainstream so as to offer a different perspective and additional training with a slightly different look on the same thing (Tim O'Riley) . The system does more or less "equal out" left and right on its own with time, but reversing sides first and just plain doing the opposite sides are additional training possibilities. Again, just an option for those that want to not a knock to those who don't just a "different" or optional way of training to help the students. Now if an individual instructor wants to make this a part of their "base" activity.... well .... heck so be it for them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Moreover, the whole system--from the moment of the first lesson, in which a neophyte steps out with their left foot into a horse stance (hm. There's an interesting argument), or back with the left to start Delayed Sword--emphasizes that right side. Why jack around with that?
Sincerely, Robert

Well, I agree with you in part because there is a lesson there in repetition to ingrain that movement to the beginner, however at the same time we also know that if we start good habits early the end results down the road can be awesome. So, I (in over 25 years of experience have taught both ways and know from experience that I have proven results with my own students) like to start the working of the complete curriculum on both sides not just the basics (which I'm sure you don't just punch or block with only one side of your body) from the get go. Again, not a slam to anyone that does not do the same, but it works really well for me and that is all that I'm trying to relay. If you feel you don't need it ........ cool that's ok too. Remember I did it that way also once upon a time until I found what works better for me in my opinion.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I also agree that the argument's been had before, especially with regard to running the techniques on both sides. Sure, OK.

But do we actually know whether or not this helps? I know for a fact--at least based on my experience, always a bit shaky ground--that teaching the kenpo system right-side dominant works. Do we know that teaching both sides works? How? Were folks with 20+ years of experience taught this way? If not, how were they taught?
Sincerely, Robert

I think I answered this pretty well just above. No, there have been no Gallop Polls to Validate the findings just my personal results as a Kenpo teacher. But that is good enough for me. My students are better than I was, but they have made me more knowledgeable also from the experimentation.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I also really question this whole "symmetry," business, as I've already noted. Not in the sense that it's wrong, but that I want to see the rationale for it. I think we're simply accepting symmetry as a goal, without thinking about the reasons. More important than that, possibly--and I'll try to put this in a way that indicates my own stick-in-the-mud quality as much as anything else--I don't hold with this newfangled kenpo teachin'.
Sincerely, Robert

LOL, well I wouldn't say that it is this "new fangled Kenpo teachin'" as you put it. Mr. Parker and I years ago (18 or more ... and geeze he's not been with us for nearly 12 years!) discussed this whole ordeal and his Purple Belt saying says it all.......

"While there is a difference between the terms "opposite and reverse", both provide answers to thoroughly understanding the effects of motion."

He felt that practicing on both sides of "everything" was a great idea but he did not "force" anyone to do it. He just suggested it if you wanted to work on yourself and to what degree. I personally took that as a green light and immediately started requiring students to do both sides of everything (forms, sets & techniques) just like we do the basics already. It for me was a great choice. Students have proven to be more flexible in terms of left and right movements and react with less hesitation in the long run when formulating or in the gaseous stage. It is however, a process and results do not show up clearly in the beginning so I understand the resistance and extra work that some feel is not necessary. To those I salute and say .... I'll meet you in Rome, I realize there are more roads out there than the one I personally am on, so keep an open mind and share what your journey has enlightened to you ..... hecks I may switch roads at a future junction..... who knows... lol

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I can't say that I really know how kenpo was "traditionally," taught--does anybody?
Sincerely, Robert

Well, Robert yes there are many that have been around for much longer than you and I and they do know what they were taught and how. But I don't think that is the question. Remember another of Mr. Parkers Purple belt sayings, "Knowledge is BOUND when one is compelled to tradition, knowledge is ENDLESS when tradition is bound." We have our traditions yet we don't become subservient to them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
But I can say that some of the stuff I've seen at tournaments, especially with regard to forms, is just plain silly. There's a lot of improvisation out there, and it's coming from folks who don't even know what the hell it is that they're changing. Change, by all means: I wish I were better at that. But know what the base is, first.
Sincerely, Robert


As far as tournaments go and what you have just said above.... I totally agree with you. You are correct ....... many do not even know the system correctly or deeply and are changing it for the worse in my opinion.

You must be careful however, some just make changes for the "event" and not to their personal art that they practice in the studio. So what you see is not always what they practice as THEIR BASE, you have to inquire to find out.

As to BASE SYSTEM understanding that you mention you must also have a little levity and realize that many are not taught the system the same. So there are many BASES out there and many do not contain all that you know from yours. My Base may contain or have many factors that you have not learned yet or is void of. So, you must be careful when commenting on others takes ....... understanding that there are many aspects and details that many are not aware of thru instruction of their lineage for any number of reasons.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
It's the same stuff I tell my writing students. First, finally there are no rules in writing. You can do whatever you want on a page, provided that a) you let the reader in on what you're doing in some fashion; b) you're doing something that makes sense; c) you understand what it is that you're doing; d) you play by the rules you've established; e) it works on good readers.
Sincerely, Robert

You mention rules which reminds me of what Ed Parker told me about rules and fair play. He said,"fair play or rules, is when your opponents definition of fair play or rules, MATCHES that of yours."

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
It isn't that I oppose changing things, particularly since we're not altogether sure what the "original," kenpo system aand its teaching methods were. But I am against changing things just for the sake of changing them, particularly by folks who don't know what they're changing.
Sincerely, Robert

This I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE ON!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I ran into a good example of this on kenponet last wekk. Somebody wrote in to say that they'd done Long 4 at a tournament, and really well, apparently, because a judge came up and said that they form was beautifully done, but wrong. Why? They'd been taught to do all the techniques oriented to 6:00 (Circling Windmills, Defensive Cross, etc.) oriented to 12:00, so the judges could see it better. What's wrong with this? beyond the fact that I dislike the whole idea of changing the forms just to win a little trophy, the really important thing is that the student had no idea that they'd been taught the form in a changed fashion.
Sincerely, Robert

Well, that is not the students fault but the instructors. If he/she made a change then they should have informed the student. This is exactly how things get passed down incorrectly!! Soon this student breaks away and forms a studio and teaches it way he learned it and then runs into you or I and we ask why the form is done in that manner and the answer is that's the way I learned it. LOL Oh boy....... here we go........

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
They did not know the original form. They thought that the orientation to 12:00 was correct. They did not know that it'd been changed, and they had no idea why it had been changed.
Sincerely, Robert

Yep, Correct Ignorance

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Talk about symmetry? How 'bout teaching students to look behind them in a fight?
Sincerely, Robert


Originally posted by rmcrobertson Anyway, thanks for the arguments. It's a real pleasure to discuss this material, without some bozo hurling insults because we aren't saying what they want to hear.
Sincerely, Robert

Actually, I don't like to use the word "arguments". I'd rather consider it discussion or debate. It sounds more professional and less insulting as you say.

And yes, agree or disagree it has been a fun and enjoyable joust.

:asian:

Man Brian! Look what you started....again!

Ok so we talk about symmetry.....that is opposite/reverse, forward/backward.

So my question is this. How many of you do short 2 backward, from the end to the beginning? And of course on side A and side B?
Talk about your symmetry....

Surprised that someone knows what they are talking about?

:D

OK, first and last points first and real quick. I ain't recantin' nothin'. I merely pointed out that I hadn't understood the situation fully enough. Second: "argument," is precisely the correct--and I might add the professional--word to use. It is an academic word, and it implies the presentation of a clear topic, an arguable thesis (a thesis everybody agree with is not a thesis, but a truism), the presentation of idea and evidence in support of that thesis, and the attempt to reach a conclusion. It does not imply the, "Jane, you ignorant slut," approach to discussion: that is an image created by a culture that has apparently decided that screaming incoherently, hurling insults, and refusing to listen to others or attend to reality (Rush, Leykis, "Crossfire," "The McLaughlin Report," etc., etc.) are intellectual discussion.

I still want to know why symmetry is in and of itself a value. Not that I'm saying this is wrong: I want to hear the--ah--arguments.

Thanks.

Just a thought Robert ...

If this is something you can do, why not do it and, perhaps, be pleasantly surprised at what may come out of it? You may break some ground and find things others have not. Unless it is troublesome.

Dan

Tried it briefly. Too easy.

But then there's Clyde's little horror: doing the forms backwards.

Oh yeah...but heere's a question: how are the wide kneels different?

Thanks,
Robert

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Tried it briefly. Too easy.

But then there's Clyde's little horror: doing the forms backwards.

Oh yeah...but heere's a question: how are the wide kneels different?

Thanks,
Robert

My good man...

They are like narrow kneels but with a fat pillow between you knees! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dan

I rejoice that you only wrote, "pillow," Dan.

In the AK system I began my training in, both sides of all forms, through Long 3 anyway, were required for advancement. However since moving to the Tracy system only the Power side of each form is required, with one exception (Mass Attack). Not until Sandan do you have to learn all forms on the weak side, but by that time it comes pretty easily because for Nidan you learn all techniques on the weak side, and you've been practicing the more difficult one's in the forms since you first learned Long 3. If you just let it flow, all you realy need to remember is the transitions are opposite.

Originally posted by Elfan
I do everything on both sides. It is preferable to defend with your more corodinated hand to the front but thats not always possible. Being able to use either hand with near equal profeciency increases the choices you have, which IMHO, is a very good thing.

Are you one of Matt Moncreaff's students?

Originally posted by warriorsage
I'll never be one to try and say that I know the system inside and out, but...

I really think the defenses are geared for a right-handed person and not mainly the attacks. Many of the attacks feature left punches, left grabs, left ___, etc. True, a left grab may be done only to allow the right punch to follow, but I doubt any righties would attack with a step through left hooking punch. (ARrgh!! the step through punch, that's another topic of debate.)

I find that the majority of our retaliatory efforts are right-side dominant. Even when your left side is forward, the main strikes or kicks seem to be right. I realize this isn't a major breakthrough, just my observation. I agree with the elfster, that a left-handed person should be taught the opposite techniques from the start to give them a better chance for survival earlier in the game.

What's up kids?!? I 'm home for the holidays...:D

You're correct~ the system is right side dominant. I am left handed myself and found no problem learning the techniques of the system. Most people in our society are right handed. So the majority of those that study EPAK have no problem. For those of us "lefties", teaching the student the techniques on the opposite side works very well.:asian: