Short Form #2

[MisterMike]

Well, I agree to disagree. It certainly isn't opinon if we were each taught differently. We're both relying on facts from out teachers.

Also, approximately and exactly are certainly a world of difference. I was referring to the latter, and most Kenpo forms don't end exactly where they started.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Um...I know it's harping, but it isn't just opinion.

Let me put it this way: I can explain why the forms start and end in the same place. I can explain why Short 3 doesn't. So--what's your explanation for the point of origin changing? For the new point of origin--that is, why's it changed to where it's changed? And how would you then explain to a student the idea of "measure,"--for, say, stances--if their yardstick gets changed and moved?

 

[MisterMike]

The forms were put in place to encapsulate the system. There are themes throughout the forms. The object was not to throw a bunch of techniques together, left and right sides, and hope you ended in the same place. Some forms, as I mentioned earlier, come close, but this was not the main intent of Mr. Parker.

I'd also question your statement that Short 3 is not symmetrical. If you look deeper, there is symmetry, even though the techniques are not mirrors of each other.

Also, I already agreed it is not opinion. Just the difference of what you've learned and what I have.

I'm confident in all of the reasoning I've learned as to why the forms are put together the way they were, but to elaborate much further would take a large book. You have to keep in mind that with all the McDojo's out there, there are bound to be various watered down versions. As far as changing the length of stances, I haven't seen that.

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by MisterMike
It certainly isn't opinon if we were each taught differently. We're both relying on facts from out teachers.

If I were in front of you right now I would shake your hand and say that's one of the best statements ever put on MT.:asian: It's probably because of this that my transition during Repeated Devestation that puts me over "about" 1 of my stances. Take what you want of this, put it under debate, I don't care; if it's incorrect then in someone's eyes it's incorrect. :asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Thanks Jason! Yeah, you'd probably want to stay in their centerline for the whole technique while running Repeated D.

I've found that there's right, wrong, and everything else inbetween.

:asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Thanks Jason! Yeah, you'd probably want to stay in their centerline for the whole technique while running Repeated D.

It's not so different. After executing the right side of R.D. I step back to a natural stance before executing the left side. When stepping out to horse, then up towards the angle with the elbow I come back to natural then I perform the left side. After doing the left side it comes back to horse with the left punchdown. This is what puts me over. If it's wrong then it is. If it's different then it's different. If it's right then I guess someone will come back and explain that it's wrong. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, first off, please read what I wrote. Nothing in it says that Short 3 isn't symmetrical; it says that it's the only form that doesn't begin and end in the same place. However--if we want to discuss symmetry, why then, NONE of the forms are in fact symmetrical. Nor is the human body.

Second off--sorry, but I believe it to be an error, not ending where you've begun. Please look at pages 53-4 of Inf. Insights, vol. 4, which discusses this under Short 2, and ties the concept to bad footwork during the form. I realize that will bug folks, sorry. But I notice that nobody can give a reason WHY the shift's supposed to happen. Nor does such explanation take volumes to begin.

Look: you end in the same place a) because of "point of origin," b) because it teaches you where the different places on the clock are, c) because it teaches properly-measured footwork, d) because of the concept of, "center," e) because it teaches where your "space," is and how to come back to it; f) because if you do the footwork right, it works out that way, g) the "reference point," for this form is a horse stance oriented to 12:00, with the center line of the body on the center line of the form.

If you put in the stuff I mentioned, the Rpt. Devastation part won't matter--especially because the form has the step to 12:00, not 1:30 as in the technique isolated.

Again--I apologize, please take it as simply a passionate statement. But it isn't, "all good." Not all of this is, "opinion." Nor does, "tailoring," mean changing for no reason.

Eppur si muove, folks. Not everything is right in this way, any more than all opinions have equal weight in science--you don't have to believe that the earth moves in an elliptical orbit, or that we evolved, but well...there's the prob with the mountains of evidence.

I'll try and shut up now, since I don't mean to tick anybody off. But unless I can see some reasoning...nope, not gonna buy it.

 

[MisterMike]

OK, first off, please read what I wrote. Nothing in it says that Short 3 isn't symmetrical; it says that it's the only form that doesn't begin and end in the same place

I understand the difference between symmetry and start/end point. I just thought you were relating them when you said Short 3 didn't start/end in the same place and all the others did because of symmetry.

Just a wrong assumption on my part.

But have you really mapped out the forms. Maybe you should get a bunch of popsicle sticks and use that as the basis of the length of a neutral bow, then lay them all out for us, (- / \ | ) and map the forms. I don't think you'll find too many starting/ending in the same place. Oh, if it's a cat stance, break one in half. Haha..no, in all honesty, the forms were not even designed to start/endin the same place. That was not the INTENT.

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by MisterMike
... in all honesty, the forms were not even designed to start/endin the same place. That was not the INTENT.

I agree.:asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
If you put in the stuff I mentioned, the Rpt. Devastation part won't matter--especially because the form has the step to 12:00, not 1:30 as in the technique isolated.

Are you telling me that you step toward 12 o'clock when executing both the Repeated Devestation techniques?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, I have. Or more precisely, the forms have mapped out the way I "step," which--as I mentioned--is one of their purposes.

And yes, step to 12:00 with Rpt. Dev. The form's oriented to 12:00 anyway, though it won't matter to the start/end point. Did you try the ceding/regaining ground stuff in the section with Crashing Wing?

I'm still interested in an answer to the question I asked earlier: doesn't it bother anybody that I can explain why the forms should begin/end in the same place (though I'll bet I'm missing out on half the reasons), and so far nobody's posted any reasons for them NOT to, or explaining the logic of having the points of origin move?

I understand they often do change in traditional arts. But...

By the way, it's not like I'm saying that I've got this stuff down pat. I'm just saying that this is how it should be...

 

[jfarnsworth]

At this point in time I am having problems with my back and left leg. So no, I haven't tried the material in which you suggested. Although little by little and a lot of therapy I'm hoping to be able to do forms and techniques in the very near future. Right now it just kind of hurts and there are nerve pains going through my leg. If you in fact were referring to me then I will take your challenge as soon as I possibly can. Maybe you are that much better than me or know that more than I but that doesn't really matter to much with me. Right now I'm kind of wishing that I had a video tape on long 3 from someone for viewing/reviewing but don't have one. :asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Yeah, I have. Or more precisely, the forms have mapped out the way I "step," which--as I mentioned--is one of their purposes.

I agree here. The forms are for the feet.

I'm still interested in an answer to the question I asked earlier: doesn't it bother anybody that I can explain why the forms should begin/end in the same place (though I'll bet I'm missing out on half the reasons), and so far nobody's posted any reasons for them NOT to, or explaining the logic of having the points of origin move?

I feel it is what happens in between the start/end point that matters. You could have random flailing and end up in the same place again, but it wouldn't show you the relationship between the forms. The forms are built on each other and while their creation probably spanned 20 years, I don't have this long to explain all the why's, nor do I know them all. But if I may summarize what I do know:

If you were to overlap the forms, you will see a trend, or pattern being built along the 8 directions. There are of course themes in the forms, Basics, Grabs, Combinations, Takedowns, Weapons...etc. The forms are your catalogue, and contain all the motion of Kenpo. Techniques are just variations of this motion from the forms. And then of course there is freestyle.

But the point of origin principle is best left for individual movements, rather than comparing one move, and the 100th or so at the end of a form. My word may not be gospel, but for what I am searching for in the forms, it makes sense to me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Must be the week for neck and back: mine's killing me, after lots of forward/reverse shoulder rolls on Wednesday, too much driving, and too much screwing around on forums--got myself into a truly embarassing and stupid argument, couldn't summon the sense to tunnel back out.

Perhaps it's justice--but I'm still right about the forms.

 

[jfarnsworth]

Ok, I went through long 3 today. Slowly but nonetheless I found out something interesting however. I was trying to make all transitions as good as possible. We have those jigsaw mats on the floor and I decided to start my natural stance into destructive twins directly over my centerline over a junction corner. Anyway back to the story. I noticed that I ended up about one transition stance short of the direct starting point. After careful thought there are 2 glancing spears moving backward plus stepping back into a horse with pinning wing. Moving forward there are only 2 Desperate Falcons. This put me one short. What's your thoughts?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I spoke to Mr. Tatum, over the weekend, about the "point of origin," idea for the forms--his comment was the the reason for it, in the fixed forms, is so that, "the forms will be symmetrical to themselves." Part of this, apparently, is so that when you work one line, you then go back and "reverse," working the other side of that same line. I was saying somewhat--but only somewhat--the same thing, when I argued that the forms are meant to teach a kind of, "mapping." But it's gonna be awhile before I have much of a sense of what he meant...

He also noted that one's own forms--made after the basic forms are learned--don't necessarily have to start and end in the same place; other matters are being explored. I'd add that traditional forms often aren't symmetrical, either...

But I still suspect that with Long 3, the problem's in the Crashing Wings section; the way I learned it, you "cheat," your feet off from the center line when you go into the base form, so you have to "cheat," back to center after the throws on both sides...which'll take you back to the original horse, centered on the original attention stance in which you began...

I know it's all what we're used to, but the main form I have tropuble keeping centered remains Long 5...big as Nebraska, and with a drifting state capital too..

Short 3? Not a prob...the "center," moves left, just as it's supposed to...

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
...the main form I have tropuble keeping centered remains Long 5...big as Nebraska, and with a drifting state capital too..

Yeah man I hear you there. Both of the parallel lines get often confusing plus that damned hopping crane That's a whole other issue for another thread. On long 3 I was taught to take 2 adjust steps on crashing wings to move from the elephant stance to horse. The only problem I found was like I said 3 steps back then 2 forward. Again this could just be a matter of instructor, lineage, personal interpretations, surroundings, virtually many factors. Too bad we all can't get along.:asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Jason,

I have mapped out the footwork in the forms and also done a small analysis on the angle changes. I posted Short 1 thru Long 2 on my site here:

http://www.ancientscents.com/kenpo/short1.html
http://www.ancientscents.com/kenpo/long1.html
http://www.ancientscents.com/kenpo/short2.html
http://www.ancientscents.com/kenpo/long2.html

What helps my study is looking at the current stance, the foot maneuver following, and the destination stance. Also colored is the angle change. The gray lines are the current stance location and the green lines are the destination.

If you do this for all of the forms, you will pick up on the patterns and matches, as everything has an opposite and reverse. You can see this right away in Long 1, but if you look, some of the angle mathces for Short/Long 2 do not appear until later forms. Don't worry about my weak naming conventions, as I have not classified all of them yet, but this is what I used to get started.

This is also why I never focused on whether the forms started/ended in the same place, but where the relationships lay.

Now you've got me wanting to finish my search :asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

Excellent: I have students who will be visiting your website.

Kudos,
-Michael

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh. I don't mean to be repetitive and indeed pedantic--it just happens--but you know, it might help discussion if you didn't throw in cracks like, "that is why I never focused on..." In the first place...well, you get my point.

In the second and more important place, if every move in the forms has, as you note, a "forward and reverse," (and they don't, exactly), this would suggest constantly returning to the same reference point.

And I'd note that there are a couple variations from the originals in the ways you mapped out, say, Short 2. The original had a c-step, not an l-step; there's a transitional cat stance between the step-through and heel palm to 4:30 and the step-through and heel-palm to 7:30; there're cat stances to 1:30 and 10:30 near the end, before the neutral bows; and (not necessarily necessary to point out, but still) there're forward bows with the punches.

Thanks.