Mirroring Techniques

[rmcrobertson]

Dear "Kenpo Tiger:"

Nope.

Sincerely,
"Robert"

 

[Kenpomachine]

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...

You'll use whatever feels the most appropriate after the block. It well may be 5 swords instead of sword of destruction if you've trained the techniques both sides.

As you said, is a matter of confidence. Not a matter of using the dominant side, though. So maybe training both sides gives you the confidence lacking?

I don't know, because the only times I've trained techniques both sides were because I had an injure preventing me from working the right side. Well, there weren't the only times, because with a guest instructor we once trained both sides of each technique, and you could only guess which was the dominant side by which side he was teaching first.

The one who said (sorry, I don't remember who) "Learn as a child, so you won't have prejudices about which side is right" was soooo right.

 

[Dark Kenpo Lord]

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

This force is becoming strong with this one LOL. Much wisdom and knowledge has been gained.

DarK LorD

 

[MJS]

OK, fine.

1. It strikes me as peculiar that when the dogma of, "doing the techniques on both sides," gets pushed and I disagree, I immediately get accused of being dogmatic. How is it more blind to say that it isn't all that necessary, than it is to say that, "No, you absolutely have to do things on both sides?" How is it more dogmatic to write, "well, it looks like..." than it is to write, "this is in the books and I personally asked Mr. Parker, but go ahead, little mite," rather than to offer some sort of explanation of one's position?

Well, last time I checked, I didnt find any clones of people, so..........again, just because its something that YOU dont do or is not a requirement for YOU, does NOT mean that just because its a requirement for MJ, does that make her or her inst. wrong??? Obviously in YOUR eyes it does.

2. If you'll actually read what I wrote, there's no argument against "learning both sides." There's an argument about the best ways to do this. I think that dognmatically doing, say, Five Swords on both sides would be better handled by just learning the forms..like Short 2 and Long 2, which have modified versions of that very technique done ON BOTH SIDES right at the start.

Regardless of if its done in the forms, why cant someone do them as a seperate thing outside of the forms??? Again, its a good drill and it makes people think and explore things.

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.

Dude, its not a shortcut. Why do you keep saying that. Like Bro John said, if you take a longer way to work, who is that a short cut?? Its not!!! How is doing the techs. on the opp. side, outside from the forms a shortcut?? Again, this is turning into a big flame, because YOU Robert disagree with how someone else trains. Do you have the ultimate way of training?? I highly doubt it!!!

4. Sigh. When you face a student, or a teacher, and step out into a meditating horse stance, left over right, this is, "mirroring," in the sense that you're doing pretty much the same thing. However, a) because the orientation is different, each of you step in a different direction; b) neither figure is perfectly symmetrical, because the left hand and the right hand aren't doing the same things; c) each has different center lines; d) an observer won't see perfect symmetry; e) people are not stamped out with a cookie cutter, and their two sides don't match, so in actuality you have BOTH mirroring and asymmetry along two axes at least.

Ok.....what does this have to do with the techs????

5. It is possible--look; I wrote POSSIBLE, which means that it MIGHT BE worth considering, not that this is the only way to see it--it is POSSIBLE that in removing part of the system, or fiddling about with it, that we are removing something important. For example, PERHAPS (see? POSSIBLY I've got a point, possibly I don't) learning the techniques on the dominant side, then learning the, "weak," side through the forms, opens up the extent to which the techniques are not meant to be equally strong on both sides, though they are meant to be equally effective in different ways. Right hand tiger--strong but "stupid," right? left hand dragon--"weak," but smart, right? Maybe (it's a conditional, see?) the idea is to learn both a strong version AND a subtler one, and MAYBE when we go rushing off for the same kind of strength on both sides, we're burying something.

Robert-----NOTHING is changing here...NOTHING!!! Doing the techs. opp. outside of the forms is changing??? Nobody is going against the grain of Parker. Its simply something different to do and a different way of doing techs. outside of the forms.

Mike

 

[MJS]

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.

Actually Sir, this got off target when Robert got involved, with his one-sided views. If you'll notice, hes thrives on constantly disagreeing with EVERYTHING that is said if its different than the way he trains.

Mike

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Actually Sir, this got off target when Robert got involved, with his one-sided views. If you'll notice, hes thrives on constantly disagreeing with EVERYTHING that is said if its different than the way he trains.

Mike

This certainly seems to be the case. The thing is we all have thoughts and ideas concerning the effectiveness of this type of training. I have many of my own on this, and had I desired to share them I could have expressed them in appropriate thread: left-right? The topic of this thread is how best to accomplish this task, not whether or not it should be attempted. I realize sometimes we can't help ourselves but to express our ideas even when we understand a request. I suppose it is unavoidable at times. However, there are some who would argue a point for the sake of arguing, and that does paralyze the process. It is difficult to see productivity in that, and then when I see the following it boggles my mind and tells me we've gone too far off...I find it interesting to see here in this thread that what Robert accuses others of doing, he turns around and does to KT himself. Perhaps Robert you do not always get the explanations you desire because you do not always bother to give them yourself. Courtesy works both ways.

How is it more dogmatic to write, "well, it looks like..." than it is to write, "this is in the books and I personally asked Mr. Parker, but go ahead, little mite," rather than to offer some sort of explanation of one's position?

Dear "Kenpo Tiger:"

Nope.

Sincerely,
"Robert"

At any rate, I appreciate the sincere and positive suggestions from those of you who gave them, and as GAB suggests I shall run with them as I begin this task this week, and I want to say thanks for all of your help and for sharing your experience and knowledge! :asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Actually Sir, this got off target when Robert got involved, with his one-sided views. If you'll notice, hes thrives on constantly disagreeing with EVERYTHING that is said if its different than the way he trains.

Agreed! :asian: Now if there's an all high and mighty way of doing things please let me know so I can start immediately.

 

[MisterMike]

What's really going to bake your noodle is "There is no technique."

 

[mj-hi-yah]

What's really going to bake your noodle is "There is no technique."

LOL :rofl:

 

[kenpo tiger]

MisterMike,

You really need to learn how to cut through rhetoric to the chase, doncha?

MJ is correct here in that it's supposed to be a discussion, not a harangue by one party who thinks he's an expert. BTW, Robertson, I seem to remember seeing a precis of your academic credentials. Have you ever listed, or would you care to list, your kenpo/ma credentials for us? Inquiring minds want to know. [And don't turn it around on me. I've done so plenty of other places on MT even though it doesn't appear in my profile.]
As to the topic at hand, I think what we've all pretty well agreed upon is that mirroring the techs has its value for practice, for confidence in doing the tech, and just simply because it's a good exercise. I attended a school where I had to learn all the forms from the end to the beginning so that I would know exactly where to pick up if asked a question when teaching them. Now, that may sound pretty dumb and a waste of time to some people, but it was a teaching tool - as is mirroring - and had its place in that particular system, which doesn't have a structured set of techs as kenpo does. As to whether we're "looking for shortcuts", I don't think so. Anyone who decides to follow the kenpo path knows what they're committing to insofaras time spent and knowledge to be learned and internalized. Mirroring can help some learn more easily -- SEE THE THREAD ON TYPES OF LEARNING (emphasis added).

In sum, whatever works for you in your training. KT

 

[Brother John]

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.

Your first guess was the best guess,
you are confused.
The issue isn't your twist, 'using both sides'...but the fact that mj-hi-ya's instructor set her the asignment of executing all of her techniques on the "off side". Let me help your memory here:

As a requirement for second black, I am challenged to begin mirroring my techniques.
For years now I've been training these techniques one sided and now have to rethink how I do them.
I'm wondering if anyone who teaches this or has self taught technique mirroring has any insights, ideas, suggestions, or recommendations on how to make this process a little less painful.

THAT is the 'issue'. Becoming proficient on both sides of your body isn't the issue, it's executing her techniques on the opposite side.
Pretty much the only person talking about forms and sets is YOU.
BTW: learning to, and then making a practice of, executing the techniques on their 'off-side' has NOTHING to do with any form of "devaluation" of forms or sets or their benefit to making our 'left' side work well. Practicing the off sides of techniques doesn't mean you don't get all the good from the forms that you can.

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

Again: not the issue. Of course it 'involves both sides', anything that didn't would be very rediculous. We aren't talking about that, you are. We are talking about

As a requirement for second black, I am challenged to begin mirroring my techniques.

THAT.

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.

I believe you are wrong.
What You read into it was the devaluation of forms, which I think you did because that fits your preconcieved notions and is an easy way for you to explain it away; because it doesn't fit the doctrine you've been handed.
Our forms do not contain ALL of the self defense techniques.
In training the forms we experience the techniques differently than we do when we are working with a training partner/attacker. Therefore experiencing the techs in the off side is very different than gleening the 'off-side action' from sets and forms. ((otherwise all we would need would be the forms themselves as they would give us the on and off sides of everything and give us all the experience with these that we need....and while the forms sure are 'chock-full O' Goodness', they don't do this)) This is the hole in the hull of your "devaluation of forms" theory.

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

This thread isn't about these ideas of yours, which have been discussed and discussed, and again....
:deadhorse
as the initial post, and subsequent replies, states...there is a place to go to "disuss the ideas"

I went back here on MT and read an interesting thread by tshadowchaser entitled - left-right? and the thread debated the necessity of doing this.

So we don't need to be treated like the one who got off subject and need to get back to 'discussing the ideas'. That's condescending.

Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh dear. I see that we WOULD rather discuss my sterling character than the ideas and arguments. Personally, I take this as symptomatic, but wotthell..and anyway, I refuse to get into this kind of personal nonsense. The problem isn't that, anyway--it's that ya don't like what I'm saying, and ya find it inconvenient to discuss.

I will note, only in passing, that my "kenpo credentials," are at least as solid as my academic ones. And why exactly would one think that a belt rank would make the ideas more valid?

As for mirroring techniques, well, I don't see this as really having much to do with, "doing techniques on both sides." The, "challenge," comes up frequently, it seems, and I still haven't seen a clear, coherent explanation for it. And no, saying that it helps your ambidexterity isn't clear and coherent. And oh yes...when I teach, I try to come up with things that fit the particular student, when I go outside the written curriculum. Is that what's at stake here?

I'd been interested to see to what extent people's experience of learning the extensions has helped their, "both-sidedness," especially given the extent to which the extensions radically changed my understanding of what was going on with the other guy, on the other side of the mirror.

 

[Rob Broad]

Well since this is in the General Kenpo section and not the EPAK section it might go to say that MJ Hi-Yah's school doesn't follow the curriculum laid out by SGM Parker. We actually know that her school doesn't do the curriculum laid out by SGM Parker since she makes reference to 2 Tracy techniques and later states that they use Tracy material up to Green Belt.

This discussion was not about the benefits of being able to work your offside. It is about ways of being able to learn how to do it.

 

[jfarnsworth]

It is about ways of being able to learn how to do it.

I also might add; All she was looking for were ways to better her kenpo. :asian:

 

[Brother John]

Good Golly!
I couldn't care less about your character and don't care to discuss it. Character isn't displayed or revealed in an internet forum, no matter how much we type (mind you, You type a LOT....but you probably deal with the "publish or perish" type of needs at work).

Personally, I take this as symptomatic

Seems like you say things like this a lot, that when others state opinions that contradict yours you find it symptomatic or indicative of problems or flaws. I think you may be a little too close to the patient to make an unbiased diagnosis. It's an easy way to dismiss a line of reasoning outright without having to face it's validity.

The problem isn't that, anyway--it's that ya don't like what I'm saying, and ya find it inconvenient to discuss.

Don't tell me what my problem is. I have discussed it, and I've given coherent/rational reasons that support my opinion. Whereas you've come up with some stuff thats fundamental but irrelevent and other stuff that's...well
...something about a meditating horse stance, weak tigers and strong dragons and mystical sounding tripe about 'esoteric' embedded messages w/in the forms.
I find it all too convenient to discuss with you, and I have here and other places. (if you haven't noticed, I don't tend to shy away from debate) Actually I'm sorry I've followed you down this side-corridor you've built off of mj-hi-ya's original purpose for this thread... not sorry because my points/reasons don't hold their own (they do) but because it's a huge side-track.
Sorry mj and all.

I still haven't seen a clear, coherent explanation for it.

Yes you have...just not one that you will accept.

Your Brother
John

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Sorry mj and all.

No need to apologize for what you've found to be true :asian: besides it's raining in NY today, and it's been interesting in an unexpected way. Anyway, I think it best for me to leave it all here. I've taken the best of it and learned a lot!

Thanks Brother John!

 

[MisterMike]

MisterMike,

You really need to learn how to cut through rhetoric to the chase, doncha?

My appologies. I meant: "What's really going to bake your noodle is would you be searching for a left side if I never told you there was a right?"

 

[kenpo tiger]

My appologies. I meant: "What's really going to bake your noodle is would you be searching for a left side if I never told you there was a right?"

Hmmm.

Okay. GUILTY!! I was the one who asked for Robertson's kenpo credentials - so it's my fault, Brother John. Inquiring minds need to know. Sorry for the digression, but, since Robertson LOVES to digress...

And, you all, our school (MJ's and mine) teaches the extensions once we pass green belt, so I guess that's going to obfuscate the issue even more. We don't follow the rules, according to Robertson. Truth to tell, having trained elsewhere prior to kenpo, I find what I'm learning thought provoking, exceptionally practical, and --- dare I say it -- FUN. It's a challenge to figure out the techs to the other side - and our master instructor has set us this task in order to make us think about it now -- not when it becomes necessary to do the tech differently than it appears in the book, i.e. in the street.

MJ is also fortunate that our school is supportive of everyone - regardless of what level of training they have attained. We all help each other, and if she wants to practice Crashing Elbows against a left punch, well, I'll gladly do it for her, as she would for me. KT

 

[rmcrobertson]

Here's a little digression I wrote about six months back, that may eventually go up on the LTKKA website. Of course, it has nothing to do with mirrors. Oh, and there's a Part II, which specifically discusses another famous essay on subjectivity and mirrors--Lacan's, "The Mirror-Stage," but it has nothing to do with mirrors and mirroring either. Nothing whatsoever. Please feel free to take whatever pot-shots seem necessary, but please note that it is my writing and I retain any and all rights to it.

What Is the Mirror For?

If dojos, gymnastics training rooms, dance studios, aerobics classes and fencing schools share anything, it is mirrors. Big, wide, tall, floor-to-ceiling mirrors. Lots of them. Their presence is a little enigmatic for the new guy, who can see the reason for the mat (it’s martial arts...you might fall down), those hanging bags (it’s martial arts...you should hit something), the weapons (it’s martial arts...you should learn to stab something), the locker room (it’s martial arts...special clothes), without trouble. It’s easier to handle the idea of the rail on one wall, since the new guy probably won’t even see that--but what are all the mirrors for?

After we start, we’re told over and over that, “what the mirrors are for,” is to get us to see what we’re really doing. In fact, mirrors start appearing everywhere in our training. We mirror our attackers in techniques like Triggered Salute, we imitate skilled opponents while we’re sparring, we try to do what we see the black belts doing. Those of us studying American kenpo even learn to think about that third, outsider’s viewpoint that has the truth, and to put a mirror outside all our conflicts.

Mirrors, mirrors everywhere, but they don’t really tell us much. For one thing, what does it mean to think of one’s mirrored image as the place where the truth about what we’re doing lies hidden? For another, why are so many of us so reluctant to look closely at that image in the mirror? I distinctly recall preferring to stare at the sign on the door to the women’s locker room while I was sweating my way through class, rather than having to take one more look at the sight of my own beet-red, sweating face perched on top of a slumping, wobble-legged fat self. And I’m not the only one. It takes forever for students to learn that pretty much all the answers they are desperately seeking are right there, hanging, only a few feet in front of them. Or to quote one or two of my first instructors: “Look in the mirror, dammit! That’s where the problem is!” I am fascinated by the way that students will not, will not if you stick them with a red-hot pin, look at their own image.

I’m not trying to say that everything’s all simple. I’m not even arguing that martial arts students, those dummies, just need to look and see what’s right in front of them. (I do have a sneaking admiration for the Zen teacher who, when asked to write his own epitaph, came up with, “My whole life...selling buckets of water on the banks of the river!”) Instead, I want to say a few things about what I think those mirrors are for. I want to take the contradiction between those unavoidable mirrors and the way that we avoid them as a clue to what’s really going on. I want to argue, in fact, is that our use of the mirror goes right to the heart of one of the most debatable issues in martial arts training: are martial arts all about learning how to fight, or is learning self-defense just a means to a completely different end?

To explain, I need to make a bit of a detour into psychoanalysis--specifically, I need to go through one of Sigmund Freud’s weirdest ideas, and then into a really annoying essay by one of the most-annoying of Freud’s followers, Jacques Lacan. Yes, I know how much Freud gets laughed at these days. Yes, I know that this sort of thing can easily turn into one more way of ducking out on getting your gi on, and risking getting out on that big blue mat thingy with other wacky guys and gals.

I’d point out one thing about Freud--like it or not, he stuck us with a whole world of vocabulary for discussing questions about how we see ourselves, how we develop, how we understand our relations with others, and how we might be cured of what ails us. If Freud wrote about anything useful, it was the development of the ego and its place in psychic life. Somewhere in there, I would think, are the concerns of martial artists.

To Freud, then. Specifically, to a famous little incident he relates in his book, Beyond the Pleasure Principle. It’s usually called the, “fort-da,” episode (the “here/there episode, if you prefer), it tells a story about kids, and the punch line is kind of thrown in as an afterthought. Basically, Freud’s been discussing the ways little children deal with loss and with the fear of loss, more or less by learning to make substitutions for the things, or the people, that they inevitably lose as they grow up. Think of Linus’ blanket. Think of the way nearly every kid has a favorite toy that you’d better plan on bringing if you want them to go anywhere. Personally, I think of a little boy I met years ago, whose dad was a carpenter and away from home a lot. Many horrors ensued. One day, the kid saw a PBS special on elephants who were used by builders in India. He went completely elephant crazy, and did fine from then on--except, of course, there was a two-year period in which he refused to take off the plastic elephant trunk he’d gotten during a trip to the zoo. You don’t want to ask what the trunk looked like.

And that’s what Freud observed in his grandson. The little boy, very attached to his mother, learned to deal with her absence by playing a little game with a spool of cotton thread. When she was away, he’d hang onto one end and throw the reel away, saying, “ooohhh!” (a version of the German word, “fort,” or “gone”), then he’d pull the reel back in with a happy, “da!” which means, “there!” In other words, he learned to cope. He just confused his mom with a little reel, substituted a game he could control for one that was completely beyond him.

Now beyond the general fact that martial arts training involves a lot of anxiety on the long slow road to the acquisition of control, and a certain creepy resemblance of the game Freud’s grandson plays to the old, “silk-reeling,” exercise used to strengthen the wrists, what is the world has this got to do with mirrors in martial arts? The connection is actually pretty direct--but as I mentioned, Freud sort of tucks it away. A footnote says that the game his grandson played got more sophisticated a few months down the road. The boy played the same game with a mirror that happened to be in his nursery. Crouching down low beneath the mirror, he’d say, “oooohhh!”--and a second later, he’d pop up, look at his own image, and chortle “da!” He was playing peekaboo, with himself.

So first his mom came and went. Then he needed a substitute, and he devised a game with a reel of thread. Then that game ran dry, and he began to play with his own image. What this suggests to me is that: a) at its deepest, the game we play with the mirror in martial arts rests on an anxiety about losing something precious, and trying to put off finding substitutes; b) our increasing ability to look, and to recognize what we see in the mirror is a translation of something deeper; c) there’s something profoundly childish about the martial arts--if you do them right.

I realize, of course, that for some people, “learning the martial arts,” means learning to kick *** as soon as possible. I think this haste usually reflects a fantasy that actually endangers the student. But here, I want to point out a couple of things about applying Freud’s explanation of the fort-da game to the problems we encounter in training. Most importantly, I think, it’s a matter of understanding what we are trying to do, when we learn to look in the mirror: we are trying to invent a better image of ourselves, modeling what we want to see upon what we think we see in our teachers and in “better,” martial artists. Don’t we all say things like, “Well, I don’t know...my technique kinda comes and goes on its own?”

 

[kenpo tiger]

Ah Robertson. What of those dojos in which the mirror plays little or no role in one's learning?

As for spouting Freud, please do. At least we can agree on that. KT