Mirroring Techniques

[kenpo tiger]

look at 'em a little closer and find the parts and pieces of Alternating Mace, Attacking Mace, Blocking the Kick, Thrusting Salute, Five Swords, Opening Cowl, Unfurling Crane, Striking Serpents Head, Pushing the Circle, Intercepting the Ram...

pete

Yes, Pete, I knew that when I posted you (or someone else) would point that out, and, technically (or techniquelly!) speaking, it's all there. However, I also did state that both are mostly basic skills - blocks, stances, punches. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! :uhyeah: KT

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson wrote:

3. Why is some of this a hunt for short cuts? Because when I read someone asserting that Short 1, 2, etc., are merely, "skills forms," so you have to separately practice techniques on both sides, I take this as not merely a lack of understanding (which is what Mr. Farnsworth wrote, quite properly and very politely noting the relations linking yellow belt techniques and Short 1), of the forms, but a substitution of any search for that understanding with the multiplication of technique.

I am entitled to my opinion the same as you are. I view those forms as skills forms because I teach kids. Kids aren't going to be analyzing forms for the techniques, nor do I expect the younger ones to do so.

As to how I practice and what I get out of my forms and techniques, well - respectfully, that's my business, sir. Excuse me if I don't have the time to analyze everything as carefully as you do. Then again, I don't fully expect that I will get anywhere much past second black due to my age and lack of time and (apparently) as you have pointed out, talent for this.

Some of us do martial arts for self defense. Some for love of doing it. Some, like me, for both. KT

 

[Rob Broad]

Short Form 1, Long Form 1, Short Form 2 and Long Form 2 are called the Dictionary Sets. If all my reading is correct these forms are ther to teach us about the basics and stringing them together. If that understanding is correct tat is basis for the techniques. From Short Form 3 and up they are called the Encyclopedia Sets which are comprised of self defense techniques. Personally I have learned a lot about grafting form these forms.

As for learning about mirroring there are no short cuts, many of the things that I and others have suggested are ways of getting the brain not to keep what we have learned in a box. None of the material is carved in stone, but many of us view it that way.

 

[Rob Broad]

Robertson wrote:

3. Why is some of this a hunt for short cuts? Because when I read someone asserting that Short 1, 2, etc., are merely, "skills forms," so you have to separately practice techniques on both sides, I take this as not merely a lack of understanding (which is what Mr. Farnsworth wrote, quite properly and very politely noting the relations linking yellow belt techniques and Short 1), of the forms, but a substitution of any search for that understanding with the multiplication of technique.

I am entitled to my opinion the same as you are. I view those forms as skills forms because I teach kids. Kids aren't going to be analyzing forms for the techniques, nor do I expect the younger ones to do so.

As to how I practice and what I get out of my forms and techniques, well - respectfully, that's my business, sir. Excuse me if I don't have the time to analyze everything as carefully as you do. Then again, I don't fully expect that I will get anywhere much past second black due to my age and lack of time and (apparently) as you have pointed out, talent for this.

Some of us do martial arts for self defense. Some for love of doing it. Some, like me, for both. KT

Give him hell Girl!!!!

 

[rmcrobertson]

I can virtually guarantee that I am older, alas.

However, my argument was not that the forms have nothing to do with skills. Of course they do.

My argument was that, especially given this context, it is simply incorrect to say that Short 1, 2, etc., are only "skills forms," which is what I read. Did I read incorrectly?

I also do not agree that it's all just a matter of opinion--and I suspect that you don't think this either. Certainly you wouldn't tell a kid student, "Well, if you want to do a neutral bow that way, that's fine, everybody's entitled to their own opinion," any more than I would. You would tell them, "That's good, and here's what I'd also like to see you doing," so that they'd learn a solid foundation for the day when they could start consciously--and meaningfully-adding their own signature to the material.

I might add that part of what I am arguing is that learning the forms, and learning the techniques, in the way that the Parker manuals map out, is precisely an aid to analysis rather than repetition.

Of course, it does indeed turn out that, "the Parker system," and its history, are a lot fuzzier and flakier than I'm letting on.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Give him hell Girl!!!!

Rob,
Thanks for the support, both as quoted herein, and in your prior post regarding grouping of forms and sets. I think what this comes down to is, as always, the different ways in which kenpo is taught and translated, if you will, for teaching.

From what I've been told, our master instructor teaches us Tracy until around Green belt, when it becomes a more 'modern' (and quote for a reason!) system. There seem to be people in kenpo who are most militant about 'their' system being the 'right' one - and I stand by my previous statements that kenpo is ideas and meant to be interpreted to fit the practitioner. That's why it's important to mirror the techs, in addition to the reasons outlined elsewhere in this thread.

Doc, Dark Lord of Kenpo, or GoldenDragon7, if you are reading this, it might be interesting to hear it "from the top". Thank you. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mr. Broad:

While I see that you are taking the claim that the short forms are "dictionaries," and, "enclyclopedias," of movement from "Infinite Insights into kenpo karate," Book V, Chapter 3, page 11, it might be useful to quote the rest of the paragraph here:

"However, as previously indicated, lo learn a FORM without knowing its true meaning or intent is like learning how to spell or pronounce a word without ever learning its definition. If a FORM is practiced in this manner, how can its proper emphasis be placed where it belongs? When teaching a FORM, explanation of its meaning and usefulness should be included so that the individual learning will know the exact purpose or purposes for which it was intended."

Mr. Parker goes on to remark that:

"...Most of our beginning kenpo FORMS are skeletal structures of SELF-DEFENSE TECHNIQUES."

Hm. It may be useful to recall that dictionaries and encyclopedias are indeed the beginnings of understanding, not research tools in themselves.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson said: "I also do not agree that it's all just a matter of opinion--and I suspect that you don't think this either. Certainly you wouldn't tell a kid student, "Well, if you want to do a neutral bow that way, that's fine, everybody's entitled to their own opinion," any more than I would. You would tell them, "That's good, and here's what I'd also like to see you doing," so that they'd learn a solid foundation for the day when they could start consciously--and meaningfully-adding their own signature to the material."

You suspect correctly insofar as basics are concerned. I explain the stances involved in any form, set, or technique as simply and as coherently as I can to the kids, taking into account to whom I'm explaining it. Each child has his own way of learning (the interpretation part), but it will, inevitably, come back around to be the proper stance done in the proper manner. I find that the kids are also very adept at adapting the techniques to left or right because there are no preconceived notions in their heads as to which is "correct".

I'd also like to say that, since I take Pete's classes regularly each week, I have the subtleties contained in the techs and so on pointed out and explained to me. I would love to be able to analyze and refine my knowledge of kenpo to the same degree as his, but -- see my little tirade above.

You have to learn to walk before you can run, and while there are pieces of techs contained, as you contend, within all forms and sets, they are, are they not, elaborations of the basics. Each piece of kenpo builds upon itself. That's the beauty of it - at least for me. It all makes perfect sense and follows logically.

And, I meant my remarks in a more constructive and nicer tone than may have come across. (You obviously pushed one of my buttons.) My apologies. :asian: KT

 

[Rob Broad]

Mr. Broad:

While I see that you are taking the claim that the short forms are "dictionaries," and, "enclyclopedias," of movement from "Infinite Insights into kenpo karate," Book V, Chapter 3, page 11, it might be useful to quote the rest of the paragraph here:

"However, as previously indicated, lo learn a FORM without knowing its true meaning or intent is like learning how to spell or pronounce a word without ever learning its definition. If a FORM is practiced in this manner, how can its proper emphasis be placed where it belongs? When teaching a FORM, explanation of its meaning and usefulness should be included so that the individual learning will know the exact purpose or purposes for which it was intended."

Mr. Parker goes on to remark that:

"...Most of our beginning kenpo FORMS are skeletal structures of SELF-DEFENSE TECHNIQUES."

Hm. It may be useful to recall that dictionaries and encyclopedias are indeed the beginnings of understanding, not research tools in themselves.

I just stated something I knew. I don't live with my nose in the books. I would prefer to read an idea here on Mt and get out my chair and put it to the test. I have my computer in the basement, and just behind my chair is is an 8X8 area that I practice in. I can see the base structure of techniques in the first 4 forms, but it is the forms after that really delve into the techniques.

Mr. McRobertson you have some good ideas but you just come off so antagonistic that people are willing do disregard anything you say.

This discussion is really about Mirroring techniques, it would be nice if we could get back onto the true topic, and that is methods of helping people learn how to work their offside.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mr. Broad:

In the first place, you yourself cited the books as an important source of knowledge on the previous page of this thread: no need to throw the, "you bookworm!," attack, nor to couple it with the suggestion that you--unlike me--actually practice.

In the second, I do not consider it appropriate to get into remarking upon the personality and character of people I've never met; I discuss their words, and what I think their ideas are. Do I screw up? Sure--but at least I don't pass smug judgments. So, remove the beam from your own eye, there, duder...and after all, the simplest way to handle things is just explain your position and show the other guy why he's wrong. When you don't do that, it raises the suspicion that you can't.

Perhaps I'm confused, but--especially after I noted it particularly--I thought I was posting on the issue of the best means for getting students to, "use both sides." You think it's essential to learn the techniques in isolated form on both sides, in part to develop equal power on both sides.

I think:
1. The system (whatever that is) that I learned already involves "both sides."

2. The context of a devaluation of sets and forms--which you certainly did not argue, but which seems very clear to me--is precisely what necessitates the extra "side," practice. If the forms and sets aren't devalued, it isn't necessary, though it is fun.

3. The human body isn't symmetrical, and kenpo is a right-sided system for better or for worse. The two sides are not the same.

4. The bases of kenpo in the various Chinese arts suggests very strongly, at least to me, that preserving this, "right-sidedness," is exactly what preserves the sort of "esoteric," material encoded into the left, "weaker," side of forms and sets. There may be problems with trying to bring the left side into perfect balance prematurely, since this may end up concealing the material coded into that other, "hidden," left side.

5. There may be questions to be asked about the sexism of this right side/left side dichotomy: is it fact, or ideology?

Now. Ya wanna just discuss the ideas, or keep on with the doubtless absolutely fascinating topic of my sterling character?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson said:

"4. The bases of kenpo in the various Chinese arts suggests very strongly, at least to me, that preserving this, "right-sidedness," is exactly what preserves the sort of "esoteric," material encoded into the left, "weaker," side of forms and sets. There may be problems with trying to bring the left side into perfect balance prematurely, since this may end up concealing the material coded into that other, "hidden," left side."


I would imagine that there are also practical considerations as to why the left side is secondary to the right when a tech is taught. In fact, there are arguably, some techs which do not have a right or left side - nor a correct side, for that matter.

For argument's sake, in a tech where you are using only your hands, such as Heavenly Ascent, practicing to the left side could have some value as follows: Your hands are pretty much interchangeable in this tech as you are orbiting through the strikes; therefore I would think that improving your left hand speed as well as power would be the reason for doing/practicing the tech to the left. (If you are left-handed, practicing the techs to the left could only be beneficial, since it is your strong side.)

It was also pointed out elsewhere that practicing the techs prone is a valuable drill.

To my way of thinking, goes to show the versatility of kenpo.

And Robert, I have to look at your public profile before conceding the age level to you! :wink2: KT

Just did - you list as much information as I do...

 

[GAB]

Hi mj-hi-yah.

I backed off seeing so many of your kenpoist coming in and giving you some information but that was 20 posts ago and they have gotten off target.

If you need some ideas, again I would recommend to read these posts and see what they are telling you.

Lots of differences of thought, that is good, take it and run with it.
The reason it is diffucult to come to a conclusive decision, is the very reason that is happening on this thread.

I still think if you read some of the information By Guro Dan Inosanto it will help you, he was very happy with what he learned with Ed Parker and Bruce Lee.

I (because I am looking from the outside in) find all of the post's to be very beneficial.

Regards, Gary

 

[Rob Broad]

The bases of kenpo in the various Chinese arts suggests very strongly, at least to me, that preserving this, "right-sidedness," is exactly what preserves the sort of "esoteric," material encoded into the left, "weaker," side of forms and sets. There may be problems with trying to bring the left side into perfect balance prematurely, since this may end up concealing the material coded into that other, "hidden," left side."

After reading this a couple times something else came to mind. It is only the last couple hundred years that left handedness has been acceptable. It wasn't unheard of teh children showimg left handed tendencies were thought to be evil and put to death. That could also be whey there is such a lack of left handednessin teh Chinese arts.

 

[kenpo tiger]

The bases of kenpo in the various Chinese arts suggests very strongly, at least to me, that preserving this, "right-sidedness," is exactly what preserves the sort of "esoteric," material encoded into the left, "weaker," side of forms and sets. There may be problems with trying to bring the left side into perfect balance prematurely, since this may end up concealing the material coded into that other, "hidden," left side."

After reading this a couple times something else came to mind. It is only the last couple hundred years that left handedness has been acceptable. It wasn't unheard of teh children showimg left handed tendencies were thought to be evil and put to death. That could also be whey there is such a lack of left handednessin teh Chinese arts.

See definition of "sinister". Good observation, Rob. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm afraid that I don't think of techniques as ever using only the hands.

I might also point out that Long 3 articulates very much the same moves and principles as this technique--in the "Thrusting Wedge," and "Blinding Sacrifice," sections of the form, though of course the trajectories of the strikes are at different angles. On both sides, too.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Hi mj-hi-yah.

I backed off seeing so many of your kenpoist coming in and giving you some information but that was 20 posts ago and they have gotten off target.

If you need some ideas, again I would recommend to read these posts and see what they are telling you.

Lots of differences of thought, that is good, take it and run with it.
The reason it is diffucult to come to a conclusive decision, is the very reason that is happening on this thread.

I still think if you read some of the information By Guro Dan Inosanto it will help you, he was very happy with what he learned with Ed Parker and Bruce Lee.

I (because I am looking from the outside in) find all of the post's to be very beneficial.

Regards, Gary

Gary,

Thanks again for posting! As you've noticed, and as I anticipated might happen, we have gone off track a bit. However, if as an outsider to Kenpo you are finding some value in it all than it's worth it I suppose. I have gotten some fantastic suggestions and I will look for the work of Guro Dan Inosanto when I finish the book I'm currently reading.

Respectfully,
MJ :asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

3. Why is some of this a hunt for short cuts? Because when I read someone asserting that Short 1, 2, etc., are merely, "skills forms," so you have to separately practice techniques on both sides, I take this as not merely a lack of understanding (which is what Mr. Farnsworth wrote, quite properly and very politely noting the relations linking yellow belt techniques and Short 1), of the forms, but a substitution of any search for that understanding with the multiplication of technique.

I suppose your above comment could be taken one of two ways and I'm not sure which it is. If your saying I have a lack of understanding of kenpo then I'll say your probably damned right. What I know about kenpo is very little and I'm willing to post it here in front of everyone to say "I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING".
Now if your saying I gave a reference to some material to help people understand the movements of the beginning forms are in fact pieces of self-defense techniques, then cool. Maybe just maybe I may look at short 1 (first move) as a reference to five swords to have the "ability" to step backward instead of forward :idunno: . Short 2 obviously gives move info. on stepping forward and using the front hand with 2 strikes. Then long 2 gives the example of using economy of motion to further work on 5 swords. Then pick up the rest in long 4. Is there anymore info. in short 4 :idunno: ? I for one couldn't tell you 'cause I don't know it.

 

[pete]

forms and techniques are 2 distinct tools we have within the system(s) mr. parker left us. the forms are designed for solo practice, and techniques are meant to be practiced with an opponent. while there is much to be learned from doing a form with a partner throwing the attacks, and learning the movements of a technique alone in front of a mirror, this is not the main purpose of these tools. the forms will train you to internalize correct posture, stances, balance, fluidity, rooting, and agility. techniques will test all of the above, with emphasis on reaction, timing, distance, control, and targeting.

maybe, just maybe, the earlier forms are more similar to the chinese arts, where a student learns a form initially to learn how to move without understanding the full nature of the application. then, as applications reveal themselves through the students development, it is realized that there are several applications contained in each sequence of the form when examined with different intents.

perhaps, the some of the techniques we practice are just derived from those abstracts...and others are yet to be derived...

the later forms are more obvious in moving from one technique to the next, some with mirrored versions. but don't these forms still provide us with the same purpose and benefits as the earlier forms? are they there for us to internalize posture, stances, etc through solo practice? could this be a metaphor for the development of the art from being shrouded in asian secrecy to something more 20th century american?

through my eyes, as i see it today, practicing a mirrored technique is very different to practicing a form containing the movements of mirrored techniques. i am right handed. lucky, i guess, unless i have dreams of being a major league first-baseman. i think there is something genetic that made me this way, and 43 years later it ain't changing. i can work my forms to develop balance, agility, etc, but it's not going to make me left handed.

so, given KT's example of Heavenly Ascent, why, under duress would i choose to react to a 2 hand choke "symetrical attack" using my less dominant side? why do 5 Swords from the left when you can do Sword of Destruction or Unfurling Crane with the confidence of using the dominant side? maybe its just me, and others more ambidextrous would...

notice i said, "as i see it today"... i may reach a higher level and come to a different realization with more practice and time in the art...but for now, i use my forms to try and internalize the principles, and techniques to actualize them.

now, i've got some exceptions where the mirror techniques could come in handy. say you're grabbed around the waist from the rear, and your thinking Spiraling Wrist/Twig (depending on your nomenclature), and you look down and see fingers pointing to the left. i'd think you'd want to go with it as the mirrored version. same true for getting stuck with your left arm hammerlocked...it would help if you'd have trained those techniques.

so, do we pick and choose to see which ones are practical and which aren't needed to be mirrored? or do them all for completeness? well, i doubt it makes anything complete since symmetry can go beyond left/right mirroring (good reference to prone position tech training KT!)

sorry i don't have any direct answers here, just some thoughts based on where i am in my training today.

pete

 

[rmcrobertson]

Liked the explanation, that you, "Pete, " gave.

Why'd I like the explanation? because it let uncertainty in.

IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF DOING THE SAME THING ON BOTH SIDES.

Thanks for the discussion, as it helped me to articulate some things.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Liked the explanation, that you, "Pete, " gave.

Why'd I like the explanation? because it let uncertainty in.

IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF DOING THE SAME THING ON BOTH SIDES.

Thanks for the discussion, as it helped me to articulate some things.

First of all, let me say that "Pete" is Pete - no ifs, ands, or buts. No artifice, as you can tell from his posts. That's why he's such a good person to train with - and I'm lucky he allows me to do so!

Secondly, isn't your third statement what we've all been saying, perhaps a bit less articulately than you'd like? KT