Techniques on both sides?

[Doc]

Originally posted by Doc

“Delayed Sword” steps back with the right foot (the way I teach it) and executes with the front hand.

Typing too fast while trying to think. Delayed Sword steps back with the LEFT foot."

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kenpodoc
Doc,

Good insightful reply. I was trying to formulate a response but yours put mine to shame.

I have notice that playing with techniques on the opposite side frequently gives me further insight into the technique. I find that changing sides frequently changes the majors and minors and lets me look at the technique in a new light.

Thanks,

Jeff

Thank you sir. Your particular insight and experience is much appreciated.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by jeffkyle
Very insightful. I enjoyed reading that. Definitely alot to think about there!

With regard to that message: DITTO!!!!

 

[Kenpodoc]

Originally posted by Kirk
How do you do a tech on "the other side". If you do it with your
left hand as written, then do you do it with your right hand? If
you do it with your left foot, do you do it with your right?

So instead of a right inward block, you'd do a left inward block?

Good question. I was merely talking about a mirror image of the technique. I also like to play techniques with other opposites, ie. Delayed sword outside of a L punch/push, or Delayed sword stepping in, or delayed sword outside of the R punch/push. You find you need to change weapons, timing etc., etc. I find myself proudly finding a solution only to find its already a technique I know. (ie. Delayed Sword but step with R foot to 3 o clock, is suddenly checking the storm.)

I never had the pleasure to meet Mr. Parker but I suspect he felt no need to rigorously learn the mirror image of each technique because each student was expected to use the rules of motion and discover the near infinite variety of responses available. The techniques aren't Kenpo they are a way to convey the mental, physical, physiologic and emotional knowlege that is American Kenpo.

Have Fun

Jeff

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Thanks, but I think you're misreading the quote.

You're welcome, and I think I'm not.

Your paraphrase is interesting, but I don't believe it's accurate. As evidence, I'd point to the description of the opening salutation for Short Form 1 in "Infinite Insights, vol. 5," which is on page 14. In this description, Parker uses exactly the same verbage as what I quoted in my post above (from the description of the salutation for Short Form 2). In the diagrams that show the salutation, both palms are used, just as they are in the diagrams that show the salutation for Short Form 2. Yet the descriptions of the moves for Short Form 1, along with the corresponding diagrams, only show the form off the right side. In the case of Short Form 1, this is even pointed out by the text following the description of the final move:

"NOTE: You may continue the left side of this form by doing the exact moves (illustrations 2 through 16) to the opposite side (mirror image of the right side)."

So we have:
1. A description of a salutation indicating that the use of both palms signifies that both sides will be performed, and that the use of only one palm would indicate that only one side will be performed;
2. Diagrams for the salutation that show both palms being used;
3. Descriptions and diagrams for only the "right side" of the form;
4. An indication that the left side can be added by performing a mirror image of the moves described.

The only item missing in the subsequent descriptions of Long Form 1 and Short Form 2 is #4. But given the existence of numbers 1, 2, and 3 in both cases, I believe that #4 is clearly implied. If it's not, then you'd have to argue that Short Form 1 is the only form that can be performed on one side only, and that would seem to invalidate the whole palm/finger(s) indication system: why not just teach Short 1 on both sides from the start and forget the "one side or both sides" issue?

The end of your paraphrase reads:

...and 'When both palms are used, such as in the form shown, it signifies that you will be doing your form on both the right and left sides,' which tells me that this forms involves both sides right from the start. Otherwise, you'd only sign for the right side."

So is your argument that the only way to perform Short 2 is by performing it as described in the diagrams in "Infinite Insights" followed by the mirror image of what's described, and that only performing the movements as described is incomplete? Or is your argument that the form is properly performed by performing only the movements described, and that that is using both sides, since both sides at one point or another do the same thing?

If it's the former, then I disagree based on what I wrote above: it seems obvious to me that the three forms described in "Infinite Insights" are described and diagrammed similarly -- that is, only the right side is described and diagrammed -- and that it is perfectly acceptable to perform any of them on one side only despite the fact that all three salutations are diagrammed showing the use of both palms. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that all of them are described on one side only and all of the salutations indicate both sides only supports that argument; further, I'd argue that assuming that one salutation description means one thing while another salutation description means something else is really reaching.

If it's the latter (which I doubt), then please explain how Short 1 is any different: both hands perform inward blocks, both hands perform outward blocks, etc., so why would Parker indicate that the "left side" is a mirror image?

It isn't logical to argue that the left side isn't in the form from the start. Do you do all of what I'd call Short 2, and then 'repeat' the form starting out by stepping with the left foot? If not, why then sign for both sides?

That depends partially on what "you'd call Short 2," the answer to which should be evident in your answer to my question above. The way I perform Short 2 is as it is described in "Infinite Insights," and, if we did salutations, I'd use only one palm (feel free to berate me for belonging to a non-EPAK school where salutations are not required). I'd start using both palms when I start performing the mirror image of what's described.

Rich

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks, again, but I'm afraid that some of what you've written isn't correct.

Most importantly, Short 1, Long 1, and Short 3 all separate the right and left sides of the form quite distinctly. One learns the right side first--and, I might note, continues throughout the forms to start off with the right side--and then, the left. And in fact, all three of these forms work precisely as I argued you'd have to work Short 2 if you were to do some additional, "left," side that isn't in the basic form: you sign for both sides, run the first half of the form emphasizing the right sided, then run the form "again" (I'm using quotes because it's the second half of the form, not something new) and emphasize the left side.

It is also worth noting that Long 3, 4, 5, 6 intertwine both sides, of course, but they also keep the sides distinctly separate. It's a real interweaving of different strands--and is anybody out there teaching the Long forms on both sides, whatever that would mean?

Moreover, of course I agree that it's possible, perhaps even desirable, to vary one's training to emphasize different things, if for no other reason than to avoid turning stale. But let me ask again: if you think that Short 2 has a left side that isn't in "Inf. Insights," and that you're supposed to be doing that side, do you do Short 2 in two halves, one stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot? Somehow, I get the feeling that the answer is, "No."

I'd also be interested to see some responses to the questions I keep asking--starting with, "Why exactly is symmetry a positive good in the first place?" and continuing on into, "What's the best way to teach students to become symmetrical?" and including, "Do we lose anything in prematurely rushing to develop symmetry?"

One idea does come up: running, say, Kicking Set 1 on both sides might be very interesting. I'd suggest, though, that that kind of exploration is left to individual students for a very good reason--it's quite possible to teach too much and forestall real development, something I suspect I do all too often as a teacher.

Again, thanks.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, post-script. Skipping the "berate me," deal, I've a question and a statement. If you don't do the salutations at all, what's going to happen when you get to Long 4, 5, 6, where a change in the salutation flows right into what's clearly the start of the form? As for the statement--I was taught that the salutation is a part of the form, not some superadded intro and postscript.

Still, it's an interesting discussion--and I quite liked the stuff about mirrors and half-mirrors.

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Thanks, again, but I'm afraid that some of what you've written isn't correct.

Nothing that you've written so far convinces me of that fact.

You asked:

if you think that Short 2 has a left side that isn't in "Inf. Insights," and that you're supposed to be doing that side, do you do Short 2 in two halves, one stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot?

I thought that what I posted before answered this, but I'll answer it again. I learned Short Form 2 almost exactly as it is described in "Infinite Insights." Based on the fact that I learned Short Form 1 almost exactly as it is described in "Infinite Insights," and based on the fact that the description of Short Form 1 not only appears to be a description of the "right side only" but that fact is clearly stated in the textual note following the description, I believe that what I have learned is the "right side" of Short Form 2. At this point in my training at my school, I'm expected to be able to perform Short Form 1 on both sides, but I am not expected to be able to perform Short Form 2 on both sides; I haven't asked, so I'm not sure that I ever will be expected to do this, but if I am, it would make perfect sense to me, and I would do so in exactly the same way that I perform Short Form 1 on both sides: by coming back to the meditating horse stance that is the last position described in both forms, and immediately starting again by stepping forward with my left foot.

Now that I've answered that question as completely as I can, I'd really appreciate answers to the questions that I asked you. Specifically:

1. How is it exactly that you perform Short Form 2? Do you only perform the movements as described in "Infinite Insights," as I suspect from your question to me?
2. If that's the case, how is it that you can claim that Short Form 1 "separates the right and left sides of the form quite distinctly," but Short Form 2 does not?
3. If that's not the case, and you perform Short Form 2 as you specified in your question to me ("stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot"), then how is it that it's reasonable to perform Short Form 1 on only one side, as it's described, but it's not reasonable to perform Short Form 2 on only one side, as it's described?

My own thought on question #2 -- which, I think, is the critical point here -- is that both Short Form 1 and Short Form 2, as described in "Infinite Insights," use both sides of the body equally. In one, you step back and perform an inward block with one hand, then you step back and perform an inward block with the other hand; in the other, you step forward with a block and a handsword with one hand, then you step forward with a block and a handsword with the other hand. How is one "separating the sides distinctly," while the other is not?

It is also worth noting that Long 3, 4, 5, 6 intertwine both sides, of course, but they also keep the sides distinctly separate. It's a real interweaving of different strands--and is anybody out there teaching the Long forms on both sides, whatever that would mean?

Long Form 1 is the only long form that I've learned so far, but I've seen the more advanced forms performed. It certainly seems to me that the interweaving you mention, and that I've seen, does, indeed, take care of "performing the form on the other side." Although I won't know for sure until I learn the forms, I suspect that the exact reason for this is that no new transitions would be introduced by performing a mirror image.

I'd also be interested to see some responses to the questions I keep asking

I suspect our argument has bored most readers (for the second time), but what I'd be interested in seeing is some input from some other instructors on the Short Form 2 issue.

what's going to happen when you get to Long 4, 5, 6, where a change in the salutation flows right into what's clearly the start of the form?

I'm not sure. I've seen salutations done with the more advanced forms, but my understanding is that it's up to the student and his/her instructor whether or not to learn them.

I was taught that the salutation is a part of the form, not some superadded intro and postscript

From what I've read, that's the way it's taught in EPAK schools. Seems like there's value in it to me, but different schools, different schools of thought on what's important and what's not. For my part, I don't find the existence (or lack thereof) of a salutation at the beginning and ending of a form to be an overriding concern when determining where to study, it's just one of many variables.

Rich

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, Rich, if you're going to hang on to "Infinite Insights," well, you're stuck with the idea that the salutations are indeed parts of the form.

Second off, I've already made myself clear about how I do--and teach--Short 2.

Third off, I asked a set of questions about this symmetry business too, you know. I'm afraid I don't feel any more obligated to answer questions than anybody else.

I think I'm going to drop this now. I don't seem to be getting my points across, and it's getting repetitive.

 

[Goldendragon7]

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

Alligator, I mean agitator.

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off, Rich, if you're going to hang on to "Infinite Insights," well, you're stuck with the idea that the salutations are indeed parts of the form.

Fine. I'll stipulate to the fact that I was taught incorrectly. Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand, the "left side, right side, both sides" thing.

Second off, I've already made myself clear about how I do--and teach--Short 2.

You're welcome to consider me thick, but I didn't find your explanations "clear." It seems to me that a simple, "I perform Short Form 2 exactly as it's described in 'Infinite Insights,'" or "I perform Short Form 2 as it's described in 'Infinite Insights' followed by the mirror image" would have taken no more time to type than what you did type.

Third off, I asked a set of questions about this symmetry business too, you know. I'm afraid I don't feel any more obligated to answer questions than anybody else.

I'm sure you recognize the difference between the two types of questions, mine being direct. And you shouldn't be too disappointed about not receiving any answers: from what I've seen and heard on this board, the reason nobody's answering is that you're asking for opinions, but whenever anybody shares one, you dismiss it as an incorrect fact -- with you holding the correct fact, of course.

Whatever. I'm happy to accept your unwillingness to answer as your way of saying, "I can't explain how Short Form 1 as described separates the two sides distinctly but Short Form 2 as described does not."

I hope this thread has at least been a source of some amusement to somebody out there.

Rich

 

[Kenpomachine]

Doc replied to the symmetry thing...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Rich, I'm sorry that I annoyed you--guess I was in a crankier mood than I thought when I responded.

Guess I'll put it this way:
1) kenpo, I've been taught, is a right-sided dominant martial arts system.
2) this right-sidedness--at least in theory--comes out of our natural responses--and, at a distance, out of the Asian philosophies that were part of the styles in which kenpo is rooted
3) as a long-term goal, kenpo--like all this Asian-origin arts of which I am aware--teaches a qualified symmetry
4) however, this symmetry--as a goal, if not as something that's going to be fully realized--takes a long time to develop
5) the premature development of symmetry--like premature interpretation in psychoanalysis--hampers a student's development, and cripples their ability to defend themselves
6) this is in part because there's a lot of interesting stuff tucked away in that left side, which becomes visible and usable only after long practice--and only if you keep that left side distinctly separate from the right
7) the forms--not the techs through 2nd Brown, but the forms--together with the sets, develop a measure of symmetry in their own good time
8) running the techs on both sides is irrelevant to self-defense, and has a lot more to do with the inventiveness of teachers than with what helps students
9) Short Form 2 is indeed done the way it's described in "Infinite Insights." That description contains BOTH sides of the form.
10) When you do, say, 5 Swords on the opposite side (which, by the way, is integral to Long Form 4), nothing changes. So what if it's a left roundhouse punch? The targets are the same, your feet are in the same place...try plain ol' 5 Swords against a left punch, though, and things change...

I rechecked the text ("Inf. Insights"), and both Short 1 and Long 1 are shown on the right side only. There is a note at the end of the Short 1 stuff about doing the left side, and I assume you're meant to carry this over into Long 1. However, Short 2 is illustrated in its entireity--and, I might add, this is refelcted in the way these three forms are taught. Short 1 is taught first only on the right, for yellow belt; for orange, the left is added. Long 1, similarly, is taught first on the right only; the left is added fairly casually, since by this stage a student should be able to figure out the complementary side for themselves, more or less. However, Short 2 is taught right and left "sides" together.

Long 2 is taught both sides together, and by the way is a very asymmetrical form, apparently because of its origins. Short 3 is taught right side only at first, and often the student is left to figure out the other side on their own. Long 4? Both sides intertwined, and this continues true for 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Again, Rich, I am sorry to have been impolite. However, you are incorrect in some of your assumptions, and--for good or bad--I merely said so.

I might also note that there is a difference between having a right to an opinion or idea, and being correct. In this case, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. In others, I clearly am. Oh well.

Thanks.

 

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Rich, I'm sorry that I annoyed you

That's okay, I'm used to it.

As far as your opinions about "symmetry in kenpo," I have no problem with them. I agree with some of them, I disagree with some of them, and I'm neutral on some of them because I haven't studied long enough to make an informed judgment.

The only thing I'm really interested in in this particular discussion is your claim that Short Form 1 as described is the "right side only," but Short Form 2 as described contains "both sides of the form":

Short Form 2 is indeed done the way it's described in "Infinite Insights." That description contains BOTH sides of the form.

To paraphrase what you like to say, the fact that you keep claiming it to be true doesn't mean that it is true. I think it's somewhat humorous that you write about Short 1 and Long 1 showing the right side only, and that you're willing to assume that the note at the end of Short 1 applies to Long 1 as well, but that it doesn't apply to Short 2, which is described in exactly the same style as the other two.

So the bottom line in the whole opinion/fact thing is this: If you can provide some sort of proof that Short 2 as described contains both sides while the other two do not (and frankly I can't imagine what that might be, save perhaps a handwritten note from Ed Parker), I'll consider you correct as a matter of fact; if you can provide a reasonable explanation as to how one form which has a movement on the right side followed by the same movement on the left side separates the two sides distinctly, but another form which has several movements on the right side followed by the same several movements on the left side in the same order does not separate the two sides distinctly, and I agree with your explanation, I'll consider you correct as a matter of opinion; and if you can't provide such an explanation or I don't agree with the one you come up with, I'll consider you incorrect as a matter of opinion. And I have no problem having an opinion that differs from yours, until you say that your opinion is a fact; then I'll argue until, well, everybody stops reading the thread (which probably happened 10 posts ago, unless people are still reading it just to laugh at both of us).

One more note on the issue:

However, Short 2 is illustrated in its entireity--and, I might add, this is refelcted in the way these three forms are taught.

By who? Maybe by you. Not by my instructor (I found out where the left side of Short Form 2 is required at my school this past Saturday). Not by at least one well-known and well-respected instructor who I know studied directly under Parker. I suspect not by many others. Once again, your experience does not constitute a universal reality.

I might also note that there is a difference between having a right to an opinion or idea, and being correct.

Duly noted (as it has been every other time you've written it). Now all you have to do is figure out the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Rich

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, Rich, thanks for your remarks.

 

[SingingTiger]

You're welcome, thanks for yours.

Rich

 

[Goldendragon7]

You two guys get a gold star in my book!! thank you for your positive ending to your discussion. That was nice!

:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
You two guys get a gold star in my book!! thank you for your positive ending to your discussion. That was nice!

:asian:

Awwwwwwwww Shaaaaadup!
(hopefully that will give this string the appropriate negative ending it deserves)

 

[Brother John]

Can I have a gold star, Pleeeeeeze.....

Your Brother (Plays well with others)
John