Are They The Same?

[Kirk]

In my school, we're taught to move your head in the opposite
direction of a parry, when a punch is thrown at you (e.g. right
inward parry, move your head to the right).

When doing forms, we're told to visualize an attacker(s).
My first instruction of Long Form 1 happened tuesday. Not from
my instructor, but by an experienced blue belt. I was taught that
the first move is a left outward parry, while dropping into a right
neutral bow and executing a right inward block. Nothing about
head shift was mentioned. Should it be there? If no, why not?

 

[habanero_heat]

I will leave the technicalities of this one and offer an observation i have made. Instructors will sometimes leave bits out, maybe to get you focussed on the sequence, and point out the finer intricacies as your learning.

Just because a student explains something to you and leaves something out, it does not mean its not there.

At my club only an instructor (1st dan+) can teach a fundamental, a form or technique, but once he/she has shown us we can ask students for pointers.

Basically my ethos is, that unless my instructor tells me otherwise I assume what i am doing is not perfect.

Apologies if this does not apply to your org. If you fancy, try this as an excersize, ask a black or brown belt to do SF1, then get a yellow (who has already graded on it) to do it........

 

[brianhunter]

Kirk,
Jeff brought up a pretty good point to me the other day. Would you show someone just learning short form 1 the double factors? Could they learn it? Yes. would it complicate it for them? yes probably.
Would you wait untill they have the basic movement and path of the form then possibly go back and show the double factor? Just some thoughts.
Of course the old fall back is "ask your instructor" LOL...good luck in your journey man!

 

[rmcrobertson]

What Brian said makes sense to me...

And to be honest, I should add: a left outward parry? What left outward parry? As I was taught it, Long Form 1 begins with the salutation, and then a step back into a right neutral bow with a right inward block, followed by a left reverse punch and a pivot into a forward bow...

Thanks; love these technical discussions.

 

[Michael Billings]

... Someone inserted a prefix with the parry. I have seen it done that way and I assume it is a Huk lineage thing, am I correct on that? It was not that way when Huk was teaching in the 80's, but now it shows up with certain instructors. What UP?

Double Factor - Yes to adults, no to kids.
Opposing Forces - Yes to adults and kids (until they are a higher rank)

-Michael

 

[Kirk]

Okay, first let me reiterate, this wasn't taught to me by my
instructor. I know he'll come along and polish my moves sooner
or later, but he doesn't have the time to answer every
question I have, and will have on the subject, so I figured I'd
get various opinions here. If I do something wrong on the form
he WILL catch it and correct me. We did Long Form 1 tuesday,
if we work on it tonight, I'll be majorly surprised. So I practice it
at home, and before class (which is usually when he catches
mistakes). In the meantime, I just figured I'd ask here. Like I
said before, it may be there, but I just wasn't taught it the first
time.

Brian, thanks for the point of view you presented, and I totally
agree. In this case, I kind of had a reflexive desire to move my
head, so adding it here wouldn't be a problem at all. But you're
still right, the guy showing it to me didn't know what I felt or
not, and might not have wanted to over complicate things.

Mr Mcrobertson, I guess we do it a little differently. First off, I
didn't know that the salutation was actually considered part of
the form (remember, I'm a newbie). Secondly, I don't know
a thing about this, I was just taught it, so I can't say emphatically
anything about it. What I was taught however, was that
the left inward parry is part of the double factoring, so we do a
left inward parry, then step back into a right neutral bow with a
right inward block, followed by a left reverse punch and a pivot
into a forward bow, etc. I enjoy the technical discussions too,
especially one basic enough for me to take part in, and learn
something from.

Have any of you had the student that asks tons of
questions while being instructed? Well, thats me *ducks*.
It's very hard to control, but I did realize early on that
it inhibits instruction. I could be taught so much more if I'd just
shut up and listen, so I try like hell to keep my questions down
to a minimum, and then ask them before or after class. Still,
a million questions come up in my mind. I used to rush here
and post those questions, but it seems to be a thing that my
lack of knowledge reflects on my instructor's way of doing
things, their abilities to teach, etc. It could be that what I've
learned at that point was misunderstood, I didn't hear it
right, I didn't hear it at all, didn't pay enough attention, or
my instructors have a method to their madness. I wish I knew
a way out of this, then I could post more often such technical
questions. Can y'all understand one's concern in posting a
technical question? (side bar, I'm not saying it was done in
this thread ... yet )

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Michael Billings

... Someone inserted a prefix with the parry. I have seen it done that way and I assume it is a Huk lineage thing, am I correct on that? It was not that way when Huk was teaching in the 80's, but now it shows up with certain instructors. What UP?

Double Factor - Yes to adults, no to kids.
Opposing Forces - Yes to adults and kids (until they are a higher rank)

-Michael

We must've been replying around the same time, but mine took
longer to type LOL. Your assumption that it's a Huk lineage thing
could be exactly right, since that's the lineage I'm learning. And
that would make perfect sense.

Opposing Forces ... I know the concept, but are you bringing it
up here because it's a principle to be aware of in L.F.1? If so,
can you expand on this? Last night I read the section of Infinite
Insights Vol. 1 (Chapter 3 I believe) where Mr Parker talks about
envisioning an opponent and how (my interpretation) you can
"stay fresh on" a lot of the concepts and principles through
forms. I'd like to think about those concepts while doing forms at
home.

:asian:

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Kirk

Okay, first let me reiterate, this wasn't taught to me by my
instructor. I know he'll come along and polish my moves sooner
or later, but he doesn't have the time to answer every
question I have, and will have on the subject, so I figured I'd
get various opinions here. If I do something wrong on the form
he WILL catch it and correct me. We did Long Form 1 tuesday,
if we work on it tonight, I'll be majorly surprised. So I practice it
at home, and before class (which is usually when he catches
mistakes). In the meantime, I just figured I'd ask here. Like I
said before, it may be there, but I just wasn't taught it the first
time.

Brian, thanks for the point of view you presented, and I totally
agree. In this case, I kind of had a reflexive desire to move my
head, so adding it here wouldn't be a problem at all. But you're
still right, the guy showing it to me didn't know what I felt or
not, and might not have wanted to over complicate things.

Mr Mcrobertson, I guess we do it a little differently. First off, I
didn't know that the salutation was actually considered part of
the form (remember, I'm a newbie). Secondly, I don't know
a thing about this, I was just taught it, so I can't say emphatically
anything about it. What I was taught however, was that
the left inward parry is part of the double factoring, so we do a
left inward parry, then step back into a right neutral bow with a
right inward block, followed by a left reverse punch and a pivot
into a forward bow, etc. I enjoy the technical discussions too,
especially one basic enough for me to take part in, and learn
something from.

Have any of you had the student that asks tons of
questions while being instructed? Well, thats me *ducks*.
It's very hard to control, but I did realize early on that
it inhibits instruction. I could be taught so much more if I'd just
shut up and listen, so I try like hell to keep my questions down
to a minimum, and then ask them before or after class. Still,
a million questions come up in my mind. I used to rush here
and post those questions, but it seems to be a thing that my
lack of knowledge reflects on my instructor's way of doing
things, their abilities to teach, etc. It could be that what I've
learned at that point was misunderstood, I didn't hear it
right, I didn't hear it at all, didn't pay enough attention, or
my instructors have a method to their madness. I wish I knew
a way out of this, then I could post more often such technical
questions. Can y'all understand one's concern in posting a
technical question? (side bar, I'm not saying it was done in
this thread ... yet )

To ask lots of questions! You can NEVER learn TOO MUCH! That goes with anything!

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by jeffkyle

To ask lots of questions! You can NEVER learn TOO MUCH! That goes with anything!

hehehehe ... you may regret saying that, come May

 

[jeffkyle]

Where he was teaching a bunch of instructors...AS INSTRUCTORS.

During that class he brought up that very point as he was talking about short form 1 with those people. He stated that you start the form and simply step back into a Right Neutral Bow and execute a Right Hammering Inward Block as you cock your left hand to your left hip as you learn it....but he showed them that to do that VERY SAME motion you can add a left counter grab (which could start out as a parry) to the opponents arm as you step back to block, therefore creating an elbow break to the outside of opponents arm (if you end up blocking to the outside of the arm, which is a possibility). The motion never changes, simply adding an additional move to no expense at your part causing a completely different affect to your opponent.
It was just simply a BASIC movement that can be changed to be a COMPLEX move with NO ADDITIONAL effort.
That very move can apply to long form 1 as well.
:asian:

 

[Sigung86]

Many years ago, as a struggling beginning white belt, no yellow belt in those days, we always used double blocks in both the forms and sparring, as well as most of the techniques. Having said that, I will say that I was learning TRACO in San Antonio.

I could be very wrong, or at least the cause of an argument, but it may be likely that Ed Parker took the double factors/ double handed blocking out of the american Kenpo. I also have a vid of an 8mm film of a group of his from the early days doing a "Long 2" looking form, with slap checks. So, essentially, these variations are not only possible, but probably highly effective in teaching some of the aspects of American Kenpo that were perhaps removed.???

Dan

 

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by jeffkyle

Where he was teaching a bunch of instructors...AS INSTRUCTORS.

During that class he brought up that very point as he was talking about short form 1 with those people. He stated that you start the form and simply step back into a Right Neutral Bow and execute a Right Hammering Inward Block as you cock your left hand to your left hip as you learn it....but he showed them that to do that VERY SAME motion you can add a left counter grab (which could start out as a parry) to the opponents arm as you step back to block, therefore creating an elbow break to the outside of opponents arm (if you end up blocking to the outside of the arm, which is a possibility). The motion never changes, simply adding an additional move to no expense at your part causing a completely different affect to your opponent.
It was just simply a BASIC movement that can be changed to be a COMPLEX move with NO ADDITIONAL effort.
That very move can apply to long form 1 as well.









































:asian:

Jeff,

Why add variations to a form? Isn't that supposed to be the building blocks for your work?

I can understand doing that to a technique for the "what if" issues, but a form?

Isn't there an inherent problem in that people began playing with the forms, and changes will occur that will lead to distortion?

I always thought that forms were meant to be left alone.

Just curious.

Thanks

:asian:

 

[Kirk]

That's my interpretation of what he said about forms in II

 

[Sigung86]

Gentlemen... and ladies,

Regardless of what you may or may not hold sacrosanct, both the techniques and the forms have changed either boldly or mildly over the years.

Dan

 

[ikenpo]

Originally posted by RCastillo

Jeff,

Why add variations to a form? Isn't that supposed to be the building blocks for your work?

I can understand doing that to a technique for the "what if" issues, but a form?

Isn't there an inherent problem in that people began playing with the forms, and changes will occur that will lead to distortion?

I always thought that forms were meant to be left alone.

Just curious.

Thanks

:asian:

Ok,

If that's the case, who's version should we use? If you say SGM Parker then tell us who is teaching the version we should all be doing.

jb:asian:

 

[SHADOW]

:soapbox: Kirk for the record,No we dont teach an outward parry in Longform 1,and no it's not a Planas lineage thing.Planas doesnt teach the form that way and for the most part I don't know why this person "the experienced bluebelt"would teach it to you in this manner claiming as to this is the way we teach it and this is the way he learned it at our studio.To answer your question no there is not an outward parry in the beginning of Long 1, from a horse stance as you drop into a right neutral bow you simultaneously execute " from point of origin since your hands should still be in meditation position"a right inward block with a left back elbow strike.Kirk it's always good to ask questions.Theres no such thing as too many questions when something is unclear and/or doesnt make sense no matter who's teaching it,but it's alot better to figure it out on your own.Remember Ed Parker's goal was to produce thinkers not puppets or clones!

Shadow

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by RCastillo

Jeff,

Why add variations to a form? Isn't that supposed to be the building blocks for your work?

From what I saw Mr. Parker wasn't adding a variation to the form. He was simply showing different applications of the motion that was already there. He wasn't stating that as instructors, now this form will be executed with a parry, or grab. He was simply showing them that the left hand can have a practical application using the same motion that is already there.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by RCastillo

I can understand doing that to a technique for the "what if" issues, but a form?

Why can't you apply the "what if" in a form? Most of the forms contain the same basics in the same combination as the techniques, right?
And just like a technique you can teach a form in the "Ideal" phase and then, once the student understands what is happening, the form can be explored deeper as long as the concepts still apply and the base, as it was taught, is not forgotten. :asian:

 

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by Sigung86

Gentlemen... and ladies,

Regardless of what you may or may not hold sacrosanct, both the techniques and the forms have changed either boldly or mildly over the years.

Dan

Hey. who you calling lady!

 

[Sigung86]

In actual fact, and you may check with the GoldenDragon on this, the forms can be and often are modified in teaching, after the base form is learned, to teach further or to simply reinforce certain concepts and movements.

BTW... I teach Long #1 with an initial left outward parry, simply because many years ago, I learned it that way. I also learned it beginning with a left inward parry to a right inward block. Also learned it witheye rakes in strategic places.

Is nothing sacred??????????
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dan "Dare to be different" Farmer