Mirroring Techniques

[Goldendragon7]

Why not just learn the system that Mr. Parker left?

So... I gather from what you are implying that if anyone is not doing exactly as you say/do.. they are NOT learning the system that Mr. Parker left?

I find it unique that a statement like that is posted when if you have read any of Mr. Parkers works, he makes several references to "study" opposites and reverses. Not to mention that I personally had conversations with the man on this specific topic on numerous occasions during my many as a direct student of his and he encouraged the idea of practicing this way.

Oh well......:idunno: have fun and keep practicing the Art whatever way you want.

 

[MJS]

So... I gather from what you are implying that if anyone is not doing exactly as you say/do.. they are NOT learning the system that Mr. Parker left?

I find it unique that a statement like that is posted when if you have read any of Mr. Parkers works, he makes several references to "study" opposites and reverses. Not to mention that I personally had conversations with the man on this specific topic on numerous occasions during my many as a direct student of his and he encouraged the idea of practicing this way.

Oh well......:idunno: have fun and keep practicing the Art whatever way you want.

Well, I was going to comment but after reading this post, I realize that its my thoughts exactly!!!!

Thank you Sir!! This was well said!!! :asian:

Mike

 

[MJS]

I have to note, too, that what I'm reading here looks like aspirations to short cuts to me.

How is this a shortcut??? This to me, sounds like another example that I always refer to. Just because its not something that you may/may not do Robert, no need to make the person doing it sound like they're doing something wrong.

Why not just learn the system that Mr. Parker left?

We are doing the Parker system. No changes in the techs. are being made, just simply doing them on the opp. side. Regardless of if they are done in the forms or not, why can't someone do them outside of the forms??? Its just another way to keep the mind working!

Oh....after reading my above post I said that I wasnt going to comment. Oh well...I couldnt resist!!! :ultracool

Mike

 

[Brother John]

Sigh.
When you're in a meditating horse stance, facing an instructor--is she, or he, doing exactly what you're doing?
For that matter, are you doing with your left hand what you're doing with your right?
Looks like mirroring, but asymmetry, to me.
Some of my response is based on the fact that I simply don't understand why one would, "do techniques on both sides," as something special, when the forms already do precisely this.
Nor, I might add, do I think that the techniques are exactly the same on both sides. Right side stong but dumb; left side "weak," but wise. Right side tiger, left side dragon; right side brown belt, left side black belt, yes?
I have to note, too, that what I'm reading here looks like aspirations to short cuts to me.
Why not just learn the system that Mr. Parker left?

“Yaaaawwwnnnn…”
The issue with the meditating horse stance is ridiculous. What does it matter? It’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I agree with you on one part of what you said:

“…I don’t understand why one would, ‘do techniques on both sides…”

I agree, you don’t understand.
Then you said another thing that I agree with:

“Nor, I might add, do I think that the techniques are exactly the same on both sides”

That’s right, they aren’t the same. That’s why working them on both sides makes us stretch and expand our skill/ability to be able to learn/do them on the other side. I think that’s why Mr. Parker told his students (refer back to Mr. Conatser’s replies), and others through his manuals, that it’s good to do this.

Your bit about “Right strong&dumb / Left weak&wise”, “right tiger / left dragon” and “right Brown&left Black”; is also meaningless. Quaint little sayings, but up for interpretation of meaning and worth.

Then your “note”. How the heck is doubling the number of techniques in the system an

‘aspiration to short cuts’

? So doing twice the number of techniques in the system is a short-cut?? Wow. So if I drive 2X the number of miles from home to work, is that a short cut?? I think that some taxi drivers think like you, it would explain a lot.

Yes, a thorough study/practice of the forms will help us learn to use the “off-side”, but forms also teach us the “on-side”. So if we needn’t study doing the off side of a technique because forms teach us this, then why study the “on-side” of techniques…as forms teach us this too. Maybe we just need the forms? That would be a short cut in my book.

Robert, this thread isn’t about the merits of doing the techniques on one side or two…that’s your side-track (which I’ve now indulged in as well, both of which Mr. Farnsworth predicted we would do). What mj-hi-yah was asking was:

“I'm wondering if anyone who teaches this or has self taught technique mirroring has any insights, ideas, suggestions, or recommendations on how to make this process a little less painful.”

And she did say she appreciates both sides of this argument. So as this is something she MUST do as a REQUIREMENT for her next level then she needs to hear from people that believe in this way of doing things. If we want to know all about your dissention on this way, your sentiments are well documented in almost all other related threads.

Your Brother
John

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Windmill Guard and Returning Viper are Tracy's techniques. Windmill Guard is found in Purple Belt and Returning Viper in the Blue Belt

Thank you Rob :asian: Do you have a listing of all of the Tracy technique names that are not included in the EPAK curriculum? That would be very helpful to me in relating things here. If you do, would you be willing to post it on the Tracy thread?

Thanks,
MJ

 

[mj-hi-yah]

I have to note, too, that what I'm reading here looks like aspirations to short cuts to me.

Why do you feel so compelled to note this? You are making an assumption here, and you simply assume too much. :asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Do you have a listing of all of the Tracy technique names that are not included in the EPAK curriculum? That would be very helpful to me in relating things here.

Someone on this board posted a link of written tracy's techniques. It was quite a while ago but I will find it. :asian:

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Someone on this board posted a link of written tracy's techniques. It was quite a while ago but I will find it. :asian:

Thanks Jason!

 

[Kenpodoc]

I haven't learned most techniques on both sides. I simply haven't the time. However, it appears that Mr. Parker wanted us to learn them on both sides. The forms tell us this. Short three is the intro to the technique forms. The techniques are on one side only. After that the techniques are presented on both sides. I think that this suggests that at an intermediate level that you should concentrate on one side only and get that side down strong fast and correctly. As you advance the forms suggest that at least some techniques should be learned on both sides.

At this stage in my training I've decided that this means that I should learn the techniques in the forms in an active manner on both sides.

There is more than one path to mastery. Mr. Parker knew this, unfortunately too many people think that they know the "one true way."

Respectfully,

Jeff

 

[jfarnsworth]

Remember short forms at only one sided forms. The long forms use both sides.
As far as it goes Kenpodoc I think when were in a technique line we should perform the technique 3 times, switch sides, then perform the other side before we move onto the next tech. See 'ya tomorrow. :asian:

 

[mj-hi-yah]

There is more than one path to mastery. Mr. Parker knew this, unfortunately too many people think that they know the "one true way."

Kenpodoc, thank you for sharing your insights on this. Your comment here is most inspiring! :asian:

 

[KenpoDave]

Remember short forms at only one sided forms. The long forms use both sides.

Short 1 and Short 2 do both sides.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Short 1 and Short 2 do both sides.

Yes, they do. But both are skills forms and do not really employ any techniques in them. [The point was made upthread that one doesn't start seeing techniques incorporated into forms until Short 3.]

I've never heard the dragon/tiger dichotomy referred to in quite this way. My understanding was that the tiger represents the corporeal, or physical, side in martial arts, while the dragon represents the cerebral, or spiritual side.

I'd also like to state that, in my opinion, you get out of your art what you put into it. MSGM Parker left us a detailed outline which, in fact, seems to encourage experimentation with the ideas contained therein. As to what's 'right' and 'wrong', if learning techs 'on both sides' helps the kenpo practitioner to better understand the tech and what it can and seeks to accomplish - what's more right than that? KT

 

[Rob Broad]

Thank you Rob :asian: Do you have a listing of all of the Tracy technique names that are not included in the EPAK curriculum? That would be very helpful to me in relating things here. If you do, would you be willing to post it on the Tracy thread?

Thanks,
MJ

That will be quite easy to do essentially almost all of the Tracy's techniques are different from the EPAK versions. The exceptions are very far few far between. But I will compile a list tonight when I get back form the theatre.

 

[Rob Broad]

There is more than one path to mastery. Mr. Parker knew this, unfortunately too many people think that they know the "one true way."

Respectfully,

Jeff

I really like this part of your post. I think that Master Parker left us all the tools in his techniques, forsm & sets, books, and freestyle maneuvres. After we have the base down with good strong and correct basics it is up to us to make the art fit us ididually.

 

[kenpo tiger]

That will be quite easy to do essentially almost all of the Tracy's techniques are different from the EPAK versions. The exceptions are very far few far between. But I will compile a list tonight when I get back form the theatre.

Hey Rob. Post where we can all benefit? Thanks. KT

 

[pete]

...one doesn't start seeing techniques incorporated into forms until Short 3.

look at 'em a little closer and find the parts and pieces of Alternating Mace, Attacking Mace, Blocking the Kick, Thrusting Salute, Five Swords, Opening Cowl, Unfurling Crane, Striking Serpents Head, Pushing the Circle, Intercepting the Ram...

pete

 

[jfarnsworth]

Short 1 and Short 2 do both sides.

I guess I should have made myself a little more clear by STATING the APPLICATION short forms are one sided tech. and the long forms are done BOTH sides. :asian: Now that I think about it maybe technically speaking I should have said the encyclopedia forms or the technique forms or maybe application form is just fine.

 

[jfarnsworth]

...But both are skills forms and do not really employ any techniques in them. [The point was made upthread that one doesn't start seeing techniques incorporated into forms until Short 3.]

To elaborate more on what Pete said if you look at the first move of short 1; step back left, right inward block in a right neutral bow. He used the example of alternating maces. "Maybe" I might have said it's the first move of Attacking Mace on the opposite side...... Holy **** batman; did I say that outloud??????? Different people look at things in a different way.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, fine.

1. It strikes me as peculiar that when the dogma of, "doing the techniques on both sides," gets pushed and I disagree, I immediately get accused of being dogmatic. How is it more blind to say that it isn't all that necessary, than it is to say that, "No, you absolutely have to do things on both sides?" How is it more dogmatic to write, "well, it looks like..." than it is to write, "this is in the books and I personally asked Mr. Parker, but go ahead, little mite," rather than to offer some sort of explanation of one's position?

2. If you'll actually read what I wrote, there's no argument against "learning both sides." There's an argument about the best ways to do this. I think that dognmatically doing, say, Five Swords on both sides would be better handled by just learning the forms..like Short 2 and Long 2, which have modified versions of that very technique done ON BOTH SIDES right at the start.

3. Why is some of this a hunt for short cuts? Because when I read someone asserting that Short 1, 2, etc., are merely, "skills forms," so you have to separately practice techniques on both sides, I take this as not merely a lack of understanding (which is what Mr. Farnsworth wrote, quite properly and very politely noting the relations linking yellow belt techniques and Short 1), of the forms, but a substitution of any search for that understanding with the multiplication of technique.

4. Sigh. When you face a student, or a teacher, and step out into a meditating horse stance, left over right, this is, "mirroring," in the sense that you're doing pretty much the same thing. However, a) because the orientation is different, each of you step in a different direction; b) neither figure is perfectly symmetrical, because the left hand and the right hand aren't doing the same things; c) each has different center lines; d) an observer won't see perfect symmetry; e) people are not stamped out with a cookie cutter, and their two sides don't match, so in actuality you have BOTH mirroring and asymmetry along two axes at least.

5. It is possible--look; I wrote POSSIBLE, which means that it MIGHT BE worth considering, not that this is the only way to see it--it is POSSIBLE that in removing part of the system, or fiddling about with it, that we are removing something important. For example, PERHAPS (see? POSSIBLY I've got a point, possibly I don't) learning the techniques on the dominant side, then learning the, "weak," side through the forms, opens up the extent to which the techniques are not meant to be equally strong on both sides, though they are meant to be equally effective in different ways. Right hand tiger--strong but "stupid," right? left hand dragon--"weak," but smart, right? Maybe (it's a conditional, see?) the idea is to learn both a strong version AND a subtler one, and MAYBE when we go rushing off for the same kind of strength on both sides, we're burying something.

But I wouldn't know. I don't get messages from On High.