Kenpo Forms

[MJS]

What is your favorite EPAK form and why?

Short 3 and Long 6 are 2 that I like for the way that they flow. Form 6 is good as it gives you that intro to weapons.

Anyone else?

 

[michaeledward]

I think Long 2 has quite a bit of material that is worth reviewing over, and over, and over, and over. I found it very confusing when I learned it. Having worked this form for two-to-three years longer now, and working with those who follow me, I see more information here.

I have been working on Form 4 for about a year now. I think I am begining to get the moves correct .... next up, figuring out what they mean.

 

[jfarnsworth]

I like 6 the best. Somehow other than short 3 it was the easiest for me to learn. Although I'm not that great at it I still like it a lot.

 

[Doc]

Here's a bummer. If you're doing a "form" and don't know what the movements mean on some level, you haven't really "learned" anything.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Here's a bummer. If you're doing a "form" and don't know what the movements mean on some level, you haven't really "learned" anything.

I don't think that not knowing the full application qualifies as not knowing anything. Each person is at a different level of understanding.
Sean

 

[dianhsuhe]

Sure you have! How about increased balance, coordination, and dexterity? The mechanics and basic movements of the form are a learning process aren't they?

I know that personally when I learn a new form I spend quite a bit of time just trying to perform each movement correctly before I attempt to figure out the not so obvious application (I try to do this in small pieces). So while the application of each technique/series/or combo. is VERY important, the learning process starts with the first move, the first time you do it!

I am not in a Parker style so I admit I am unfamiliar with the actual forms y'all are referencing, but I do not believe that matters in this case-

Take care Y'all,
jamey

 

[Doc]

I don't think that not knowing the full application qualifies as not knowing anything. Each person is at a different level of understanding.
Sean

Sean, without the "mind body connection," (that is having a mental point of reference and focus for the physical activity), no senaptic pathways to neuromuscular development are possible to support the action on a consistent basis per the autonomic nervous system, and Proprioceptive Neuralmuscular facilitation. This is the reason studying "motion" has substantial limitations to significant and consistent skill development. Abstract movement (lack of mental focus of application), does NOT support the physical, nor does it facilitate consistent functionality in action interaction applications.

 

[Doc]

Sure you have! How about increased balance, coordination, and dexterity? The mechanics and basic movements of the form are a learning process aren't they?

I know that personally when I learn a new form I spend quite a bit of time just trying to perform each movement correctly before I attempt to figure out the not so obvious application (I try to do this in small pieces). So while the application of each technique/series/or combo. is VERY important, the learning process starts with the first move, the first time you do it!

I am not in a Parker style so I admit I am unfamiliar with the actual forms y'all are referencing, but I do not believe that matters in this case-

Take care Y'all,
jamey

You be incorrect y'all, regardless of the physical activity or its philosophy.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Sean, without the "mind body connection," (that is having a mental point of reference and focus for the physical activity), no senaptic pathways to neuromuscular development are possible to support the action on a consistent basis per the autonomic nervous system, and Proprioceptive Neuralmuscular facilitation. This is the reason studying "motion" has substantial limitations to significant and consistent skill development. Abstract movement does support the physical or facilitate consistent functionality in interaction.

I agree that learning a complex seies of moves for memorization sake produces a lot of problems. My instructor feels techs should be practiced on bodies and almost never in the air. I can't fault a student for doing what they are told. Even "short one" looks radicly different if you are really trying to get off the line of attack (a tree is falling, get out of the way)
Sean

 

[Doc]

I agree that learning a complex seies of moves for memorization sake produces a lot of problems. My instructor feels techs should be practiced on bodies and almost never in the air. I can't fault a student for doing what they are told. Even "short one" looks radicly different if you are really trying to get off the line of attack (a tree is falling, get out of the way)
Sean

I agree with you sir. The way I was taught, it's always the instructors fault.

Although techniques can be done in the air, it serves very little purpose without an understanding of the proper application, and the proper execution that must include counter-resistance to simulate 2nd party interactions. Only through this method can you fire the proper neural skelatal/muscular activity to simulate actual two-person participation. (S.E.T. Training, for Singular Execution Training) and thus derive actual benefit. This is the same method that MUST be utilized in the execution of forms, or you're wasting your study time.

 

[MJS]

I think Long 2 has quite a bit of material that is worth reviewing over, and over, and over, and over. I found it very confusing when I learned it.

I don't think you were alone. I remember first learning that, I was a bit overwhelmed!:erg:

Mike

 

[MJS]

I agree with you sir. The way I was taught, it's always the instructors fault.

Although techniques can be done in the air, it serves very little purpose without an understanding of the proper application, and the proper execution that must include counter-resistance to simulate 2nd party interactions. Only through this method can you fire the proper neural skelatal/muscular activity to simulate actual two-person participation. (S.E.T. Training, for Singular Execution Training) and thus derive actual benefit. This is the same method that MUST be utilized in the execution of forms, or you're wasting your study time.

Good point Doc! Unfortunately, I think that this happens more often than not. Instructors have their students doing a kata/form and they do not teaching them any meaning behind it. Having them be able to perform the movements from the form on someone is also a big help, as you said.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Good point Doc! Unfortunately, I think that this happens more often than not. Instructors have their students doing a kata/form and they do not teaching them any meaning behind it. Having them be able to perform the movements from the form on someone is also a big help, as you said.

Mike

But isn't/shouldn't this be always the way it is taught? When I learned kenpo, we learned all the techniques first, and then learned the form in which they were contained. Only later, when I studied other arts, did I realize that this is not always the way it is done. Many other arts teach the form as abstract movement from which you need to figure out the applications. But kenpo wasn't done that way. I thought in kenpo, the techniques are always taught first, and then the form. Am I mistaken?

 

[MJS]

But isn't/shouldn't this be always the way it is taught? When I learned kenpo, we learned all the techniques first, and then learned the form in which they were contained. Only later, when I studied other arts, did I realize that this is not always the way it is done. Many other arts teach the form as abstract movement from which you need to figure out the applications. But kenpo wasn't done that way. I thought in kenpo, the techniques are always taught first, and then the form. Am I mistaken?

That is the way I learned. There are however, as you've seen, those instructors that leave their students to figure out what they're doing.

 

[Doc]

That is the way I learned. There are however, as you've seen, those instructors that leave their students to figure out what they're doing.

Mostly because they don't know themselves.

 

[MJS]

Mostly because they don't know themselves.

So true. And its a shame because not only are they cheating their students, but they're cheating themselves.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

That is the way I learned. There are however, as you've seen, those instructors that leave their students to figure out what they're doing.

Yes, that is common, but are the self-defense techniques that are found in the form no longer a formal part of the curriculum by themselves? If the self-defense techniques have been learned, then what is being done in the kata is obvious...

OK, I have not studied EPAK style kenpo, so I don't know what changes Mr. Parker made to the art or the details of the curriculum. I did visit John Sepulveda's school several years ago when I was able to watch a friend of mine test for brown belt. The forms looked close enough to be, in my opinion, identical to what I had learned (one thru five) in Tracy's. I just assumed that the techniques found in the forms are still part of the formal curriculum, even tho the names may be different. Is this no longer true in EPAK?

 

[MJS]

Yes, that is common, but are the self-defense techniques that are found in the form no longer a formal part of the curriculum by themselves? If the self-defense techniques have been learned, then what is being done in the kata is obvious...

OK, I have not studied EPAK style kenpo, so I don't know what changes Mr. Parker made to the art or the details of the curriculum. I did visit John Sepulveda's school several years ago when I was able to watch a friend of mine test for brown belt. The forms looked close enough to be, in my opinion, identical to what I had learned (one thru five) in Tracy's. I just assumed that the techniques found in the forms are still part of the formal curriculum, even tho the names may be different. Is this no longer true in EPAK?

Take Short 2 for example, compared to Short 3. Short 3 consists of moves that are in essence SD techniques. That is different from Short 2. You are correct though, if the form has SD techs. then its pretty self explainatory. However in the case of Short2, the moves need to be explained as well as application.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Take Short 2 for example, compared to Short 3. Short 3 consists of moves that are in essence SD techniques. That is different from Short 2. You are correct though, if the form has SD techs. then its pretty self explainatory. However in the case of Short2, the moves need to be explained as well as application.

Mike

well, ok, short two and long two are not made of formalized techniques so much, but the movements seem pretty obvious to me, and carry some pretty strong similarities to some of the other formalized SD techniques. But if someone is a teacher, then I assume they have learned the SD techniques and forms beyond Short and Long two. Once you have had that experience, it seems like most of any mystery surrounding the movements of these forms would be cleared up.

Using the example of short two, it is clearly possible to interpret the movements in different ways that all would make sense and be useful, but some ways may make more sense and be more useful than others. For example, the first inward parry of the opening move could be used against the inside of a right punch to open his centerline, or the outside of a left punch to close him off and attack his blind side. Some people might argue that one way is somehow better than the other. However, even if your interpretation is one that is arguabley less-useful, it is still something that makes sense and there shouldn't be a great big mystery surrounding a kata like short two for someone who is a teacher. A student who is just learning the form and hasn't had that other experience might have trouble, but a teacher?

 

[MJS]

well, ok, short two and long two are not made of formalized techniques so much, but the movements seem pretty obvious to me, and carry some pretty strong similarities to some of the other formalized SD techniques. But if someone is a teacher, then I assume they have learned the SD techniques and forms beyond Short and Long two. Once you have had that experience, it seems like most of any mystery surrounding the movements of these forms would be cleared up.

Using the example of short two, it is clearly possible to interpret the movements in different ways that all would make sense and be useful, but some ways may make more sense and be more useful than others. For example, the first inward parry of the opening move could be used against the inside of a right punch to open his centerline, or the outside of a left punch to close him off and attack his blind side. Some people might argue that one way is somehow better than the other. However, even if your interpretation is one that is arguabley less-useful, it is still something that makes sense and there shouldn't be a great big mystery surrounding a kata like short two for someone who is a teacher. A student who is just learning the form and hasn't had that other experience might have trouble, but a teacher?

Yes, I would hope that the instructor would have an idea as to what the movements are. I have come across more than 1 that A) did not know what the movements were or B) did not bother to teach them. In any case, you're correct, a student may have some difficulty when first learning, understanding what certain moves are.