Short Form 1

[MJS]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Drop your right foot back to 6 :00, into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 9 :00. Step with your right foot to 3 :00, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right inward block followed by left outward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Drop your left foot back to 3 :00 into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward right outward block combination and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 3 :00, moving your right foot forward to "cover." Settle into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right high inward block followed by a left upward block and right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Drop your left foot back to 9 :00 into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left high inward block followed by a right upward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 6 :00, drawing your foot up to a transitional cat stance, executing a left inward downward block palm up (active check). Step back with your left foot towards 12 :00, into a right neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right outward downward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8. Drop your right foot back to a 12 :00, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right inward downward block palm up, followed by a left downward outward block palm down and right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]9. Step clockwise with your left foot to 12 :00, returning to a meditative horse stance, thus returning to point of origin.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Repeat on opposite side.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Thought that we could discuss this form. I'd like to break this down, discussing differences in the way you may have been taught, what the form is teaching you, and what it contains.

Defensive moves, stances such as neutral bow, attention and horse, basic blocks, double factor, back elbow strike while blocking, and blocking while retreating are just a few of the many things contained in this form.

Anyone else?

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Method of Execution.

The first block is a hammering inward block ... because the blocking hand is up.
The second block is a thrusting inward block ... because the blocking hand is down.

 

[HKphooey]

Method of Execution.

The first block is a hammering inward block ... because the blocking hand is up.
The second block is a thrusting inward block ... because the blocking hand is down.

I was taught the same thing. I also learned to solidify my stance/base as I executed each block.

IMO, this kata is a great base for a student's training. The better the student learns this base information, the better they will be as a black belt. The can work on their stances, blocks, transitions, torque/counter-tourqe, retreating, footwork and blocking combinations.

 

[AvPKenpo]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 6 :00, drawing your foot up to a transitional cat stance, executing a left inward downward block palm up (active check). Step back with your left foot towards 12 :00, into a right neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right outward downward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]

There are so many details to go over on this form.
7. From right upward block facing 3 in right neutral bow turn your head towards six move left foot from its 9 o'clock position to 12 o'clock. Unpivot smartly on the balls of your feet towards 6 o'clock, executing a left downward block palm up followed by a right downward block palm down, chambering left arm for possible elbow strike to 12 o'clock.

I will be releasing hopefully this year a tape of SGM Parker teaching short form one in a seminar to a group of BB's. SGM Parker covers everything in this form, from concepts to applications. There are many other form tapes from the same weekend of seminars I believe all the way to form 6. Not sure when or if we will release those though.

There is so much to cover in this form, this is the only step I am going to cover right now.

From a Warrior to Scholars
Michael

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i love to mess with this form, even in my advanced classes.

a drill we do lately is to count the form off as usual, only for each count the student must execute a technique that begins with the appropriate block (i.e. delayed sword for step 2 or checking the storm for step 5).

another is to do short one's hand work with short 2's footwork, or vice versa. there's some interesting stuff there.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

and while i'm at it...

how many practice it with the supporting parries?

the first school i trained at included them, the second i trained at did not...

 

[HKphooey]

and while i'm at it...

how many practice it with the supporting parries?

the first school i trained at included them, the second i trained at did not...

Good point. Glad youmentioned it. Should get some more feedback to the post.

I originally learned it that way and then later messed around with close-fisted blocks/strikes.

 

[JamesB]

The way I teach+practice this form at the moment is to use a transitional forward-bow between neutral-bows whenever we step back. So the order would be:

1. Step back with left foot to a foward bow, chamber right fist (above shoulder height) for a hammering inward block
2. Pivot to right-neutral blow with a right inward-block, chambering the left fist at the side of the chest.
3. Leaving the blocking arm in position, Pivot back to a right-transitional-forward-bow
4. Step back with right foot to a left transitional-forward-bow, chambering the left arm for an inward-block.
5. Pivot to a left-neutral-bow with a left inward-block, chambering the right fist at the side of the chest.

And so on...(note I typed this out quick hope I didn't miss anything)

In makes execution of the form alot easier, and teaching it to beginners is easier also (although it takes longer)...their forms look so much sharper and more powerful with the extra transitions when compared to stepping 'straight back' to those neutral bow's.

 

[Ross]

The way I teach+practice this form at the moment is to use a transitional forward-bow between neutral-bows whenever we step back. So the order would be:

1. Step back with left foot to a foward bow, chamber right fist (above shoulder height) for a hammering inward block
2. Pivot to right-neutral blow with a right inward-block, chambering the left fist at the side of the chest.
3. Leaving the blocking arm in position, Pivot back to a right-transitional-forward-bow
4. Step back with right foot to a left transitional-forward-bow, chambering the left arm for an inward-block.
5. Pivot to a left-neutral-bow with a left inward-block, chambering the right fist at the side of the chest.

And so on...(note I typed this out quick hope I didn't miss anything)

In makes execution of the form alot easier, and teaching it to beginners is easier also (although it takes longer)...their forms look so much sharper and more powerful with the extra transitions when compared to stepping 'straight back' to those neutral bow's.

Nearly James,
Thinking about the footwork only, from a ready position,
1. step back with your left foot into a transitional forward bow.
2. turn your right foot to make a forward bow,
3. turn your left foot to make a neutral bow.

Reverse this to step back into a left neutral bow.

Hope that makes sense.

Also, some points that are generally overlooked is the positioning of the feet, upper and lower platforms (no twisting at the waist) and shoulders in alignment. I tend to find a good teaching tool is to get the students to freeze when you say and then go round and check them.

Just remember "Everything matters!" - you'll be hearing that a lot next time you're down.

Of course after your next grading, it's infinitly more specific than this!! But that fun is yet to come!

 

[JamesB]

Nearly James,
Thinking about the footwork only, from a ready position,
1. step back with your left foot into a transitional forward bow.
2. turn your right foot to make a forward bow,
3. turn your left foot to make a neutral bow.

Reverse this to step back into a left neutral bow.

Hope that makes sense.

Also, some points that are generally overlooked is the positioning of the feet, upper and lower platforms (no twisting at the waist) and shoulders in alignment. I tend to find a good teaching tool is to get the students to freeze when you say and then go round and check them.

Just remember "Everything matters!" - you'll be hearing that a lot next time you're down.

Of course after your next grading, it's infinitly more specific than this!! But that fun is yet to come!

doh! thought I'd forgotten something when I typed it out. I usually also find that emphasising the "neutral-bow is a horse=stance" really helps beginners to figure out what their hips+shoulders should be doing....i.e. when a student is not quite "there" I move to their side and say "look at me from a horse-stance" and their hips+shoulders kind of snap into place....then I turn their head back to facing 12 and it slowly sinks in...

now I just gotta get that footwork sorted...and *how* can it can any more complex than what you've just said :erg: LOL!!!

 

[Ross]

now I just gotta get that footwork sorted...and *how* can it can any more complex than what you've just said :erg: LOL!!!

That's the rub!

 

[bujuts]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Thought that we could discuss this form. I'd like to break this down, discussing differences in the way you may have been taught, what the form is teaching you, and what it contains.

Defensive moves, stances such as neutral bow, attention and horse, basic blocks, double factor, back elbow strike while blocking, and blocking while retreating are just a few of the many things contained in this form.

Mike

I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.

In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.

What do you guys think about the notion of cocking of the hands at the hips?

Thanks,

Steven Brown
UKF

 

[michaeledward]

In reading the last few posts ... I am interested in why these differences are set out.

Short Form 1 is the base of the American Kenpo System. Without it as a strong foundation, isn't the material that follows, in Long 1, Short & Long 2 and the Technique Forms, building from an unstable base?

The foot manuevers in Short Form 1 are Step Thru foot maneuvers. Why add the 'And Then' of the settle out of the Forward Bow? Isn't one of the goals of Kenpo to eliminate the 'And Thens'?

In Short Form 1, we load our non blocking hand at our hip because it is a Basics Form. We are learning to solidify our base as we solidify our strike. Our primary focus should be the footwork and front hand block.

The Rear elbow is a function of the 'Sophisticated Basic' ... We never cock as a separate move. So, as we block, we cock the weapon for the next block (strike). With 'Sophisticated' idealogy, isn't an advanced thought process of the rear elbow strike accurate?

In Short Form 2, we start to put our hands in realistic fighting positions.

In Long Form 2, we put our hands back at our hips because (as I was told) Parker Forms teach the full range of motion.

So, anyhow, I am still a beginner, but, I am sceptical of these extra thought processes as you discuss them. All of the forms work together to catalogue the American Kenpo System. How do these recommended changes fit into the entire catalogue of all the forms?

That's my $.02.

 

[HKphooey]

I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.

In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.

What do you guys think about the notion of cocking of the hands at the hips?

Thanks,

Steven Brown
UKF

Good point...

I guess one would have to know how the application was taught. To just say you are doing a rear elbow - I would agree with you. But to say your are blocking while retreating in the the unknown - then I would tell the student you are preparing for another possible attacker behind you. I have always looked at forms as a base on which to formulate one's own ideas.

 

[JamesB]

I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.

yes it's my understanding that the 'back elbow' is just a what-if / motion concept. It could be there, but the form should not be trained that way as the chambering of the fist is designed to support your body-structure and block.

In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.

What do you guys think about the notion of cocking of the hands at the hips?

We chamber our hands/arm at the side of our chest rather than hips, for all our basics/forms/sets etc, and whenever appropriate within a technique.

In my experience, there is a noticable difference in the strength of the blocking arm if the opposing arm is not correctly chambered. The fist should be chambered at the side of the chest rather than the waist - with the fist facing upwards, and the forearm parallel to the floor. If the arm is not chambered this way the blocking/striking arm will not be as effective, at least in my experience. It is quite simple to verify this by testing the strength of the blocking arm (get someone else to do it) - and experimenting with the chambered arm in different positions. I've found that chambering at the side of the chest stablises the upper body and is significantly stronger (and therefore more effective I'd argue) than not doing it this way.

I'd be interested in hearing about any mechanisms that could be used (aside from slapchecking/BAMing) which might counter the loss of structure by not chambering the arms..

james

 

[bujuts]

In reading the last few posts ... I am interested in why these differences are set out.
...
The Rear elbow is a function of the 'Sophisticated Basic' ... We never cock as a separate move. So, as we block, we cock the weapon for the next block (strike). With 'Sophisticated' idealogy, isn't an advanced thought process of the rear elbow strike accurate?
...

Absolutely, Sir. No doubt about it. It IS an advanced thought, but that being said, isn't this really just an advanced construct of ours when probing deeper into a basic form?

In Long Form 2, we put our hands back at our hips because (as I was told) Parker Forms teach the full range of motion.

True, cocking the hand does teach that, but was the form designed specifically with that intent, or was it designed to parallel classical motions? The question is, WHY is the motion in there except for adherence to classical methods? Did the creator of this form (Mr. Parker?, I'm not certain) really have advanced applications in his mind when devising this for a beginning student, or was the cocking of the hand at the hips done to parallel the basic motions of the classical karate / kenpo / kempo from which this system evolved? I've heard stories of him being criticized in is early career for kenpo's lack of forms, but do not know if this is true, or if it had any bearing on the development of the forms we know today.

My basic premise is that we don't "cock" our hands in application, even if done simultaneously with another motion, so why is the Short Form 1 constructed this way? Finally, we all know that full range of motion does not really add to power or efficiency, but rather these are products of alignment.

In Short Form 2, we start to put our hands in realistic fighting positions.

I pose in this post question and not answers - what is it about these motions in Short Form 2 that we feel an orange or purple belt (learning Short Form 2) is ready for that a white belt (learning Short Form 1) is not? Simultaneity of the hands? Coordination? Why do we teach the white belt motions (the cocking of the hands) that we do not want him or doing in application (because we steer them away from this in Short Form 2), save for the hips being a common reference point they can return to when learning?

Broad questions, I know, and unusual, but thanks, I look forward to any responses.

Steven Brown
UKF

 

[bujuts]

I'd be interested in hearing about any mechanisms that could be used (aside from slapchecking/BAMing) which might counter the loss of structure by not chambering the arms..
james

I can't speak to the details of BAMing, as I may be aware of something similar but by different terminology.

As for slap checking, we just don't do it. One thing I've brought up in the past on slap checking is that it seems to accentuate power at the end of the motion, but I don't know to what extent it adds power during the path of motion. In other words, if the blocking arm encounters resistance before the "slap" is able to be executed, or if the timing is not a discrete action (say, an inward block used in contact manipulation), is the power in that block diminished? I am largely ignorant of slap checking, have not been taught it, my teacher intentionally does not endorse it, therefore I genuinely know nothing about it.

I'd have to see how mechanical structure is enhanced by having the hand at the hip, I just don't understand it. Its one thing to talk about the end of a path of action, where the blocking arm and cocking hand arrive at their destination in unison - this is the same sort of instance of simultaneity as slap checking, it seems. But its another thing to talk about power through the path of action. Similar to the above discussion on slap checking, does the practitioner who doesn't chamber the hand lack the power of one that does if the hands do not land in unison? Is there genuine structural value to cocking the hand? When I think of mechanical structure of the body, I think of vectoral displacement of imparted forces through the muscle groups and the skeletal structure. The more mass your alignment distributes the imparted forces and energy through, the better. I'm not a kinesologist, so I can't speak as a professional on this subject.

As to your question, power sources without cocking of the hand may be arrived at by simple correct anatomical alignment, whether in motion or at rest.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

Steven Brown
UKF

 

[michaeledward]

Great Questions, to which, I am certain, I do not have sufficient answers. As I mentioned in another post today, I worked with Mr. Planas on Long Form 2 this past weekend. He tore it apart and showed me things that I had been doing for four years, without understanding how and why. And, I thought I knew that Form pretty well.

All learning takes place in the students frame of reference. For most of us, when we are learning Short Form 1, our frame of reference for self-defense is quite limited. Everything is new. It may be that the Basics Forms have practitioners place hands on their hips because of that limited frame of reference.

Certainly, much that is in the Basics Forms are more advanced than what is presented to the new student. So, we can revisit Short Form 1 after years of study and learn new things that are in the form, and quite probably in the form by design. Even if we were not aware of that design when we first learned the material.

I am also thinking of something to which I am not yet trained, but have been exposed to .... The first "Stand-Out" move in Long Form 1. The right transitional cat stance with the right thrusting inward block before the Left Inward Block/Right Punch. ... As I understand it, the opposite of that "Stand-Out" move (left transitional cat stance with a left thrusting inward block) exists in Form 6. This means you need, perhaps, a decade of study to first be exposed to this match-up, and then, how much longer time to discover and understand the match-up.

I think the forms are designed, by design. I don't think they are accidental. Mr. Parker started his martial experience in the late 40's/early 50's. I don't know when the forms were created, but even if we assume the mid-60's, that means a minimum of 15 years of experience before assembling the Parker Forms. With that broad experience to draw from, I believe there is an intelligent design in the forms.

As I continue to work with Mr. Planas, I'm sure he'll continue to knock me upside the head with the Forms as he understands them. And that certainly will be good enough for me.

Peace - Mike

 

[Carol]

So, anyhow, I am still a beginner

You may be a student, Michael, but certainly not a beginner.

If you are a beginner sir I'm not sure where that leaves me. Is there a negative metric?

 

[JamesB]

I can't speak to the details of BAMing, as I may be aware of something similar but by different terminology.

yes I'm sure there's many terms/concepts in use which describe the same kind of thing.

As for slap checking, we just don't do it. One thing I've brought up in the past on slap checking is that it seems to accentuate power at the end of the motion, but I don't know to what extent it adds power during the path of motion. In other words, if the blocking arm encounters resistance before the "slap" is able to be executed, or if the timing is not a discrete action (say, an inward block used in contact manipulation), is the power in that block diminished?

This is from my limited understanding: The slap-check is just one of the mechanisms used whilst executing a 'basic'. In the case of a block meeting resistance prior to the 'slap', then yes the upper body would not be as aligned as it could be. But the important thing is, the block is performed so specifically throughout the entire path of execution that even if the block did meet resistance, it is still strong enough (at any point in it's motion) that it does not matter if the slap get's 'interrupted' for want of a better word. But should the slap eventually 'arrive' then it would immediately lend support to the overall body alignment and integrity.

I am largely ignorant of slap checking, have not been taught it, my teacher intentionally does not endorse it, therefore I genuinely know nothing about it.

if you do a search on 'slap-check' on these forums, Dr Chapel has in the past posted several experiments for people to perform which test the efficacy of a simple slap-check. It's fun, try it out!

I'd have to see how mechanical structure is enhanced by having the hand at the hip, I just don't understand it.

I don't understand it either, but I can feel it / demonstrate it to my students. *But*, having the hand at the hip does not really do much. It is just like having the arm hanging loose by the side. This is quite common in karate I believe and is undoubtably where many people's kenpo took reference from.

Chambering at the side of the *chest* (fist higher up) is totally different. There's a reason why kungfu people chamber this way. It's not done because it's a 'basic' thing for beginners to do - the increase in structural integrity from placing the arm in that position is siginificantly greater than leaving the arm essentially floating.

Try this: stand in a (good) neutral bow and extend your right arm to a palm-heel at shoulder height, fingers facing straight up. Have your left arm 'checking low'. Now have someone push firmly against your extended hand(towards your shoulder) and see how much movement there is in your upper body - can the person collapse your arm or otherwise manipulate you by applying this force? (note if you are very strong then make sure that the person applying the force isn't half your size). What you're doing here is simulating the effect of striking with a palm-heel - but instead of you striking something, you put yourself in position first and have someone apply force in the same direction you would feel resistance when striking.

Now bring your left fist back to the side of the chest, palm up, forearm parallel to the ground. Bring it right back and up to the chest! Do the test again. There should be a difference in the structural strength in your upper body. For a stronger person the difference will be less noticable but try it on someone with light/medium build...its amazing how much power you can add to their strikes by showing them how to align their shoulders this way.

Its one thing to talk about the end of a path of action, where the blocking arm and cocking hand arrive at their destination in unison - this is the same sort of instance of simultaneity as slap checking, it seems. But its another thing to talk about power through the path of action. Similar to the above discussion on slap checking, does the practitioner who doesn't chamber the hand lack the power of one that does if the hands do not land in unison?

yes, chambering would be more powerful here.

Is there genuine structural value to cocking the hand? When I think of mechanical structure of the body, I think of vectoral displacement of imparted forces through the muscle groups and the skeletal structure. The more mass your alignment distributes the imparted forces and energy through, the better. I'm not a kinesologist, so I can't speak as a professional on this subject.

there certainly is a huge structural difference between cocking/not cocking the arm, other otherwise not supporting the upper body somehow. A slapcheck (applied with the opposing arm) with the arm held across+against the upper body will also result in structural integrity.

As to your question, power sources without cocking of the hand may be arrived at by simple correct anatomical alignment, whether in motion or at rest.

In theory yes, but for a beginner (i.e. someone training < 10 years maybe?) the external movements must be practiced as a 'full range of motion'. Someone who is *very* advanced in their execution can align their body (muscles etc) internally without having to go through the motions. But that person must have initially trained the full motion otherwise they would never have gotten to that stage. So in general, correct, specific anatomical postures must be adopted to achieve maximum effectiveness.