Short Form 2

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by Rainman

Even if you step to 3 your forearm and hand are behind the elbow strike and that is still considered back up mass. Your understanding is not wrong but, expand your usage so you are doing many things at once. Empty your cup it is difficult to fill something that is full.

:asian:

Your forearm and hand constitute the same weight as that of you entire body? Hmmmmmm...

"Using your weight in line with your strike on a horizontal plane" is the definition I have always heard from the Kenpo seniors, including Mr. Parker, not use your forearm and hand in line with you strike.

What does it say in the Encyclopedia of Kenpo say?
:asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

Gou, Gou, Gou.... Always the one making light of things.

Ya know, I am only giving my opions on what I know as I was taught by my instructor. He studies with Huk so I guess he knows what he's talking about. It's just my opinion on things I read.

Sometimes I guess common sense is lost b/c we try to over analyze and throw our own junk into the base and miss the principles being taught. Not all, but some. Adding is not wrong, but I just wonder sometimes if people understand what the technique is teaching before they tailor it down to fit there own needs.

It IS cursed....:rofl:

:asian:

 

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by WilliamTLear

Stepping to three o'clock is NOT the way that I was taught this technique, and I have to say that the way that I do it has been reinforced by several senior black belts under Mr. Parker... Here... let me name a few...

Bryan Hawkins
Frank Trejo
Dennis Conatser
Diane Tanaka
Larry Tatum
Gilbert Velez
Paul Mills
and Rainer Schulte

The step is to 4:30, and that is not just for power, but for stability in your stance. If you step to 3:00 with your left then you momentarily sacrifice a strong stance and end up leaving your self vulnerable to being pulled/pushed off balance.

REMEMBER: The guy is choking you from behind... If he has an applied grab don't you think he might decide to push and pull to destabalize you?

The understanding of this technique (among "ALL" of the others) is not totally gauged by the power in which you can strike your opponent, but also protecting your self from further impending danger (intentional or not).

4:30 is the way it is written, it is the way I have seen Mr. Parker teach it on video (I used to archive videos of Mr. Parker for his son). The video in question was one in which Mr. Parker was demonstrating on Bryan Hawkins, and it was spectacular to watch!!! (Unfortunately nobody but Edmund has a copy, and he wont let them out of his sight! Although, he might use the footage in an up comming video series he is in the middle of producing.)

MY SUGGESTION IS THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING HAVE SOMEONE GIVE YOU THE MOST REALISTIC ATTACK POSSIBLE AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT BOTH YOUR WAY AND TOWARD 4:30...

IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK 100% OF THE TIME BY STEPPING TO 3:00 THEN YOU ARE A BETTER MAN THAN ME.

Respectfully,
Billy Lear

P.S. this technique also has some environmental considerations that it accounts for. Just something for you to chew on. Take Care. :asian:

Bill,
The technique in question is OBSCURE WING not TWIRLING WINGS
:asian:

 

[Sigung86]

First of all ... And just curious ... Why would SGM Parker design a single flaw into a single kata/set/form to be investigated, perhaps by chance? If that were the case, then in my concept, that would begin to make the rest of the kata/set/form(s) suspect. If that is the case then, again, in my concept that would make the kata/set/form(s) pretty much invalid for anything other than wasting time that could be better spent elsewhere in your system ...

If all of the above is turkey-twattle, then what technique do you use in its place? Do you teach it only as a technique? Or do you teach it as a modification within Short #2?

Please rebut with some convincing discussions?

Thanks,

Dan Farmer

 

[Rich_Hale]

WarriorSage,

It’s a good thing to question the moves inside of the forms. And it’s okay that the downward raking middle knuckle fist, in Short 2, isn’t one of you’re your favorite moves. It’s even okay that you would find it odd (or would even taken aback) for Mr. Parker to purposely include an incorrectly executed move inside his system – if that is, in fact, what he did.
Now, let’s take your question one step at a time and see what we come up with.

You read on a few websites and forums that the downward raking middle knuckle (with the wide kneel) in short two is incorrect . . .

Although you didn’t mention exactly what it is that you think is being done incorrectly, I’ll assume it is the lack of support the middle knuckle has upon making contact with your opponent’s body. This is the most commonly noticed “flaw” (if it is one) in Short Form 2, so let’s start by saying that if the purpose of that move is to teach a student to strike his opponent with a middle knuckle fist (with the fist in a vertical position), yes it is being done incorrectly. This is a no brainer, as anyone can make a middle knuckle fist, push up on the middle knuckle and see that it bends like a willow in the wind.

And, secondly, you ask if Mr. Parker included this move to see if his students were actively investigating the forms.

Let’s break this second question into two pieces. First, was it designed by Mr. Parker, and second did he include it to see if his student were actively investigating the forms.

I don’t think you will get an argument for anyone that the move you are referring to was indeed included in Short Form 2 by Mr. Parker. I have been shown, and taught, this form by many high ranking men, and women, in Kenpo, up to and including Mr. Parker himself, and if you are doing a hammering middle knuckle fist, with the fist in a vertical position, you are doing the form as taught by Mr. Parker.

The big question is; Did Mr. Parker include an incorrectly executed move, in order to see if his students were actively investigating the forms?

The answer is no – Mr. Parker would never include an incorrectly executed move within his system for any reason.

Then if the move was put there by Mr. Parker and the move appears to be done incorrectly, let’s go back to the move itself and consider this; is it possible that what you see is not what you get? In other words are you looking at the middle knuckle or at the hammerfist it’s attached to?

If I were to show you a standard five pound sledge hammer, and say its purpose was to bash stuff, you would likely agree that it’s the right tool for the job. But, if I were to show you a sledge hammer that was shaped like a middle knuckle fist, and say the same thing, you may become distracted by the shape of my hammer and question my skill as a hammer maker. But what if I were to take you aside and tell you not to be distracted by the shape f my hammer, but to imagine yourself smashing and bashing stuff with my rather odd looking sledge hammer – do you think you could look past its shape and appreciate its value as a hammer?

I can’t tell you if Mr. Parker included that move to see if his student’s were actively investigating the forms, because I don’t know. But if he did, I doubt that he would have wanted them to stop investigating at finding a move that seemed to done incorrectly. I think he would have wanted them to continue with the investigation and try to determine the moves true value.