Short 2 and other worthless notes

[SingingTiger]

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

 

[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?
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

 

[SingingTiger]

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

 

[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...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

 

[SingingTiger]

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

 

[Elfan]

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...

 

[brianhunter]

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!

 

[ikenpo]

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:

 

[SingingTiger]

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

 

[ikenpo]

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:

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

 

[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?

 

[Elfan]

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

 

[Nightingale]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[SingingTiger]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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?

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

 

[Goldendragon7]

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!