# Long 2 finger pokes



## Kenpo_man (Jul 11, 2005)

In Long 2, there is a section where you check kick and do an overhand punch with the other hand. You continue to step forward and do an upward block with the other hand. You poke over the block then do two more pokes. It's the only part like it so that explanation, though vague, should suffice. What's going on with the pokes. Every time I show somebody they laugh and ask what I'm supposed to be doing with the pokes. I could tell them that I'm blocking a punch and poking in the eyes three times but that doesn't seem quite right for some reason. Anyone have a better interpretation???


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 11, 2005)

It does not really have any "technique" value, but then the 1's and the 2's forms were really more for practicing basics.

Generally, the 2 finger pokes are for the eyes, but more importantly one of the things the form is showing you is "snapping" and "thrusting" with the 2-finger pokes.

Theres a lot more to it than that once you start digging into the forms.


----------



## RichK (Jul 11, 2005)

You are correct about that, but most I see just do the finger pokes side by side. You in essence do what Huk says "thread the needle". You are shooting your finger pokes (let's use the left finger poke) right over your right wrist behind the back of the right hand and then roll the right hand under and around the left hand to do the same thing. You are "threading the needle" and using your wrist/back of hand as a type of tracking to the eyes. HTH


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 12, 2005)

Yes, kinda sorta like the tracking facing 6:00 and 12:00 doing the claw/back-knuckles...


----------



## Ray (Jul 12, 2005)

I was originally told that the block was a forearm to the jaw, first poke goes to throat, and the other two pokes go to the eyes.  I guess it's all a matter of how you see it, the block could be a block, as already mentioned.


----------



## kevin kilroe (Jul 12, 2005)

If you want good information on long 2, I suggest you purchase Lee Wedlake's book, "Kenpo 201", which covers in depth short and long 1 and short and long 2, which are known as the basics and exercise forms. You can get it on his website, www.lwkarate.com.


----------



## Kenpobuff (Jul 15, 2005)

As others have explained.  I was taught that you execute the Upward Forearm Check under the chin immediately followed by the opposite hand Vertical Finger Eye Poke over your forearm.  Then the check comes down and you deliver two more Vertical Eye Pokes with each hand.  Vertical so as to use the opponent's nose as a guide into the eyes.

That's how I learned it.  However, I haven't seen all the variations yet but I have seen some crazy versions at tournaments.

Steve


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 15, 2005)

At our school this technique is taught as a defense against a side bearhug, one arm pinned. The technique is called "Pressing the Bear," and is not taught as a specific self defense technique outside the form. Form 2 contains several techniques and parts of techniques which either never made it into the codified system of American Kenpo self defense techniques, or which influenced or evolved into techniques which are taught as part of the system. Attacking the Wall, and Pressing the Bear are two such examples. Other similar examples are the downward block to hook punch sequence and the moves immediately following, the inside downward block to upppercut punch section, and the advancing push down checks, sometimes reffered to as, "dragon walking." Looking at your other forms should lead you towards other similar situations, especially if you practice some of the chinese sets such as leopard, tiger, and crane.


-Rob


----------



## Michael Billings (Jul 15, 2005)

... and if you get really creative:

 1. Left Thrusting Sweep Kick with the Hanging Punch (I have heard it called an Overhand Downward Forknuckle strike; a bear paw; or seen it done in many lineages as an Overhead Punch) to the bridge of the nose.
 2. As you step forward into the right neutral bow, immediatly execute a right uppercut to the abdomen, continuing the line of motion into an uppercut strike to the chin, and as you settle execute from the point of origin, a right upward forarm strike to the chin or edge of the mandible. 
 3. Leaving the forarm strike in place (similar to your right arm position in Lone Kimono, with the palm of the hand facing the opponent), utilize your right wrist as a gauge and thread the first left vertical finger eye strike to the opponent's right eye. 
 4. Using the left eye strike as a gauge, track along the left wrist with your right hand (palms facing in) to the opponent's left eye, then repeat the motion with your left. The hand retracts until the fingers are parallel to the wrist at the base of the thumb.

  Whew!  and that was from memory.  

  Now what I have from the 1990 manuals looks like this




> *Set 9:*
> 
> (a) Execute a left front crossover to 1:30 as you execute a left overhead punch (hanging punch) to your opponent's nose. During this action your right hand is on your right hip.
> 
> ...


  ... and what it teaches



> *LONG FORM #2*
> 
> *TEACHES:*
> 
> ...


 And there is another section with "What Long Form Two "Contains".

  You gotta love Kenpo ... at least I do.  Mr. Parker's mind and how it analyzed and organized movement was facinating.

  -Michael


----------



## Doc (Jul 16, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It does not really have any "technique" value, but then the 1's and the 2's forms were really more for practicing basics.


So what you're saying is YOU don't know the applications in the first forms. Don't assume everyone has you level of understanding, or lack thereof. There are many here who might feel different.


> Generally, the 2 finger pokes are for the eyes, but more importantly one of the things the form is showing you is "snapping" and "thrusting" with the 2-finger pokes.


Unfortunately, in motion Kenpo-Karate you're correct.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 18, 2005)

RichK said:
			
		

> You are correct about that, but most I see just do the finger pokes side by side. You in essence do what Huk says "thread the needle". You are shooting your finger pokes (let's use the left finger poke) right over your right wrist behind the back of the right hand and then roll the right hand under and around the left hand to do the same thing. You are "threading the needle" and using your wrist/back of hand as a type of tracking to the eyes. HTH


  Welcome to Martilal Talk RichK :wavey:  I like that threading the needle explanation for this form.  I've understood that analogy for the beginning part of Long 4, but had not heard it used for Long 2.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Doc (Jul 19, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Welcome to Martilal Talk RichK :wavey:  I like that threading the needle explanation for this form.  I've understood that analogy for the beginning part of Long 4, but had not heard it used for Long 2.  Thanks for sharing.


Dam you woke her up. We're in for it now. Ok for the record the way I was taught they were not "eye pokes" but "Eagles Claw" strikes and seizes with the web of the hand. So there.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Jul 19, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Dam you woke her up. We're in for it now. Ok for the record the way I was taught they were not "eye pokes" but "Eagles Claw" strikes and seizes with the web of the hand. So there.


Hey-Ya! I haven't even asked one question yet  ...    OK since the dam's been cracked, _one question_ (there could be so many more  ), what are you seizing?


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 19, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Dam you woke her up. We're in for it now. Ok for the record the way I was taught they were not "eye pokes" but "Eagles Claw" strikes and seizes with the web of the hand. So there.


Oh geez, why haven't I seen that version? Eagle claw strikes are just outright nasty...gotta love them.

Thanks Doc.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## True2Kenpo (Jul 19, 2005)

Fellow Martial Artists,

I have been interested in this series of moves in Long 2 for some time as well.

I teach the version _RichK _ explained and described as "...thread the needle" which then can be referenced to "Darting Leaves" in Form Four as I believe _mj-hi-yah _ was referencing to as well.

I also like to teach the similarities between the triple backknuckle earlier in the form and the use of circular motion when compared to the linear finger thrusts.

A second explanation I learned was from Mr. Tatum during a question/ answer session in Baltimore, Maryland some time ago.

My question was, "Why do we strike the eyes three times in a row? I had always heard never hit the same target twice in a row."  (and there are exceptions to the rule of course)

He explained that the opponent would read the first two thrusts and parry them down and because of the timing we use in Long 2 the third finger thrust would be the one to hit because the opponent's hands would be crossed up.

I am not really sure I can explain fully in words... but in one of the next OTM's maybe I can show it real quick.  It made sense, just as the threading concept.

As before...  there are many ways to move and if the why's are there why discard the information!

Great thread!

By the way, has anyone heard a name for that offensive technique in Long 2...  I refer to it as "Dropping the Mace" just to mean something to my students.

Respectfully,
Joshua Ryer


----------



## Kenpo_man (Jul 19, 2005)

I didn't expect the variety of explanations. Thanks.


----------



## Doc (Jul 19, 2005)

True2Kenpo said:
			
		

> My question was, "Why do we strike the eyes three times in a row?
> 
> He explained that the opponent would read the first two thrusts and parry them down and because of the timing we use in Long 2 the third finger thrust would be the one to hit because the opponent's hands would be crossed up.


?


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 25, 2005)

True2Kenpo said:
			
		

> By the way, has anyone heard a name for that offensive technique in Long 2...  I refer to it as "Dropping the Mace" just to mean something to my students.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Joshua Ryer



Which offensive technique? Are you referring to the movements after the six hands/seven swords/etc movement? Essentially the second series in the form? If you are, I've always heard that reffered to as "attacking the wall", although I knew some Kung Fu schools who taught the same technique as "striking the meteor." 


-Rob


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 26, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is YOU don't know the applications in the first forms. Don't assume everyone has you level of understanding, or lack thereof. There are many here who might feel different.
> 
> Unfortunately, in motion Kenpo-Karate you're correct.



No, what I was saying is the "Sets" in Long Form 2 were not meant to be run as stand-alone techniques (exactly as they are in the form).

If so, please explain to us all how the sets to 4:30 and 7:30 (down block/back-knuckle, horizontal punch, horiz. punch/front kick, vertical punch) would be run - exactly as it appears in the form, on a person and still follow rules of checks, covers, etc. That is just one. I wont even bother with the silliness of running the second set, (vert. block/horiz. punch, horiz. punch, horiz. punch, vert. punch/side kick) but if you'd like to stand there and do that in a fight, by all means.

They ARE NOT techniques. They are individual studies of motion, which if you care to look, are built on in later forms in the exact same location (4:30/7:30) Broken Rod, maybe????


----------



## Doc (Jul 26, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> No, what I was saying is the "Sets" in Long Form 2 were not meant to be run as stand-alone techniques (exactly as they are in the form).
> 
> If so, please explain to us all how the sets to 4:30 and 7:30 (down block/back-knuckle, horizontal punch, horiz. punch/front kick, vertical punch) would be run - exactly as it appears in the form, on a person and still follow rules of checks, covers, etc. That is just one. I wont even bother with the silliness of running the second set, (vert. block/horiz. punch, horiz. punch, horiz. punch, vert. punch/side kick) but if you'd like to stand there and do that in a fight, by all means.
> 
> They ARE NOT techniques. They are individual studies of motion, which if you care to look, are built on in later forms in the exact same location (4:30/7:30) Broken Rod, maybe????


OK let me address that another way. Your understanding of its applications may be different from others. That being said, I agree with you in part about segments of forms not being techniques, and should not be strung together. However, I personally would shy away from calling something "silly" unless I considered my knowledge of the subject "complete" and "all-knowing." Insert "mind - parachute" analogy here.


----------



## Bode (Jul 27, 2005)

> I wont even bother with the silliness of running the second set, (vert. block/horiz. punch, horiz. punch, horiz. punch, vert. punch/side kick) but if you'd like to stand there and do that in a fight, by all means.


 As Doc has already mentioned they are not techniques, but let me attest to the effectiveness of the individual movements. The block/horiz punch takes on an entirely new meaning when Doc enlightens you as to the applications of these movements. Old forms become new all over again.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 27, 2005)

Bode said:
			
		

> *As Doc has already mentioned they are not techniques*, but let me attest to the effectiveness of the individual movements. The block/horiz punch takes on an entirely new meaning when Doc enlightens you as to the applications of these movements. Old forms become new all over again.



Well, I haven't seen where he said that, and I wasn't criticizing the effectiveness of these bits of motion, except as used or looked at as a technique, as many other posters had done previously.

Can you have a student stand with their arm out holding a fist and slam into them with a vertical block and simultaneous punch? Yes. But that does not comprse a technique, but was rather intended as a category of motion to be studied. As soon as you put a person on the other side of the basics forms (Short 1 - Long 2) you can miss the point of learning the Basics.

When you actually LOOK at the MOTION you are doing, you will begin to see what the forms are teaching, and as a big hint, look at the list Mr. Billings posted. Trying to put a body to some of these and expecting it to "work" is only a superficial way of looking at it. I'm not saying they have NO application, but rather hoping someone would actually look a little deeper at how the forms were put together.


----------



## Doc (Aug 19, 2005)

True2Kenpo said:
			
		

> My question was, "Why do we strike the eyes three times in a row? I had always heard never hit the same target twice in a row."  (and there are exceptions to the rule of course)
> 
> He explained that the opponent would read the first two thrusts and parry them down and because of the timing we use in Long 2 the third finger thrust would be the one to hit because the opponent's hands would be crossed up.


You're kidding right?


----------



## kevin kilroe (Aug 19, 2005)

but...but...I DONT UNDERSTAND!!!


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 19, 2005)

Some "interesting" variations on a theme here.  

Hey Doc! %-}


----------



## Doc (Aug 19, 2005)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Some "interesting" variations on a theme here.
> 
> Hey Doc! %-}


Yeah, it would seem sir a tad "out there." But then, you never know. Obviously something I wouldn't have thought of.


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 22, 2005)

Hi folks!
I've been reading this thread for awhile and finally found some time to address this particular thread...(dusting off my soapbox)  :soapbox: 

In regards to the "triple immortal man" strike section of Long Form 2:
The original poster mentions about utilizing a thrusting sweep kick with the rear leg into the front twist stance with the rear leg as you utilize a rear hand overhead punch [palm down] [or "smothering punch] {note: you can compound the punch action over your opponent's guard by using the fore knuckles of the closed fist to rake the bridge of the opponent's nose-as in Hung Gar's "tiger paw (as opposed to claw)}. Many Kenpoist do not use the thrusting sweep but simply use the a step through foot manuver into the front twist stance. REMEMBER: "A kick is nothing more than an exagerated step" so it's easy to perform that motion, but it was not the way that Mr. Parker had taught it to me on the times we worked on long 2. BTW, some kenpoists also compound the motion by using a push down block with lead hand as the rear hand executes the overhead punch.
From that point you execute a step through foot manuver a left neutral bow, you execute a left "extended upward" block [because you already perform the "inward-outward-upward-downward" formula taught in the previous forms] In short 2 we utilize the extended outward block as the "new block" that is introduced in that particular form. Now, in Long form 2, we introduce several new elements in section, the "extended outward" block is showing how to block on the angle between an extended outward block and an upward block, also, this action is used offensively, so that you strike your opponent's chin on the oscure angle with the uppercut action to drive our opponent's head up and back, then use the "extended upward" forearm check to maintain the lifted head as I push underneath the jaw, Then, I open my hand in a checking action so the back of my hand braces against the side of his face and "frames" the face {"framing"} [gee, doesn't that look like the motion be do for darting leaves in form 4? Hummmm...](REMEMBER: your opponent is being lifted up and driving back, and is off balance) We then thread the right vertical thrusting  [not snapping]2 finger poke ("Immortal man") along the forearm so that the right hand's fingers go into the left eye, then place your left hand along the inside of your forearm so as to "track" along said forearm and then thrust the left fingers into the right eye and insure your fingers are not jammed on your opponent's nose. you then place your right hand on the inside of the other forearm and strike with a third finger thrust. The last two alternating actions resemble a "pump gun' on a battleship [ofr the alternating pump gun lasers on the death star of the film "star wars"] The reason traditionally in the chinese martial arts that there are three actions are to insure that on the strong side of a technique, the right hand begins and ends the sequence of actions. In ancient times, it was considered bad luck to end a series of actions on the left side. This also frees the left hand [weak side] free to do the opposite side of the given technique or sequence of actions.
In regards to the "eagle claw" version mentioned by Mr. Chapel, the hand would strike the face in a  vertical fashion  with the 2 fingers grabbing the side of the face and/or ear as you drive the thumb into the eye. Very effective! Reminds me of Count Dante and his "world's deadliest fighting secrects" text {Btw, after John Keehan(Dante) left Robert Trias, He went to Ed Parker!}
:::getting off my soapbox :soapbox: 
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Doc (Aug 22, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi folks!
> I've been reading this thread for awhile and finally found some time to address this particular thread...(dusting off my soapbox)  :soapbox:
> 
> In regards to the "triple immortal man" strike section of Long Form 2:
> ...


Very few people would recognize that as not so much as "finger pokes," but as "Immortal Man Pointing" strikes.


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 22, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Very few people would recognize that as not so much as "finger pokes," but as "Immortal Man Pointing" strikes.


Thanks Doc! 
We've met before and broke bread together [along with Edmund] and you been kind enough to contribute to my kenpo patch collection as well as the bumper sticker for the Ed Parker Museum [which will come to fruition in a virtual format] and even though we don't always see "eye to eye" on certain matters {yes, I still remember the "You are not of service" comment} I have great respect for you as a martial artist and a kenpoist {even if you did coin the term "motion Kenpo" YUCK!} LOL!
Thanks for the compliment my kenpo bro! 
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Doc (Aug 23, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Thanks Doc!
> We've met before and broke bread together [along with Edmund] and you been kind enough to contribute to my kenpo patch collection as well as the bumper sticker for the Ed Parker Museum [which will come to fruition in a virtual format] and even though we don't always see "eye to eye" on certain matters {yes, I still remember the "You are not of service" comment} I have great respect for you as a martial artist and a kenpoist {even if you did coin the term "motion Kenpo" YUCK!} LOL!
> Thanks for the compliment my kenpo bro!
> BEGOOD,
> KENPOJOE


I remember well. We all have our days, but you know when a guy is right, you gotta say so. Truth is, I had forgot the term until you mentioned it. Age does that to you.

OK, OK, "You've been of some service." Dam that hurt!


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 23, 2005)

Immortal Man Pointing the Way was how I originally learned them.  We also used them in "Poison Hand Set" before there was a Finger Set #1.

 -Michael


----------



## Doc (Aug 23, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Immortal Man Pointing the Way was how I originally learned them.  We also used them in "Poison Hand Set" before there was a Finger Set #1.
> 
> -Michael


The cream always rises.


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Aug 25, 2005)

If you will look at the entire form you will see most everything is done in a series of 3.  It starts with the slicing chop, 4 finger poke and spear hand and continues through out the rest of the form.  I asked Lee Wedlake about this about a year ago and I believe that he told me; That if you do a poke with the right hand and then the left hand you need to get back to the starting position so the easies way to do that is by doing another poke.  So the reason for doing everything in a series of three is to do the motion on both sides and the a third is in there to get back to the position you started from.

Hey, it makes sense to me

By the way that series is the only offensive move found in any EPAK form.

That will will EPAK trivia for $400.00 Alex
 %-}


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 25, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> If you will look at the entire form you will see most everything is done in a series of 3. It starts with the slicing chop, 4 finger poke and spear hand and continues through out the rest of the form. I asked Lee Wedlake about this about a year ago and I believe that he told me; That if you do a poke with the right hand and then the left hand you need to get back to the starting position so the easies way to do that is by doing another poke. So the reason for doing everything in a series of three is to do the motion on both sides and the a third is in there to get back to the position you started from.
> 
> Hey, it makes sense to me
> 
> ...


And here I thought the outward elbow-upward block-reverse punch sequence in long one started with an offensive manuever too. Let alone the double punches from destructive twins (#3 Forms) that precede any blocking action therefore making them offensive in nature. And there are several others that have no block but start with an attack as well. Silly me I must be mistaken though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Yours in Kenpo,
James

P.S. Remember it's all in your point of view. Especially the 1 and 2 forms that don't have set "techniques" but instead define basic concepts of motion. Some will tell you that the push down sequence to 1:30 in Long 2 is offensive too by striking the stomach, some will say you're blocking a knee. Both are correct applications. Food for thought if your mind is like a parachute (read: only works when open).


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Aug 25, 2005)

Normaly when I put a post up and I get a silly reply I simply ignore it however this time I can't refuse.  Your just to cocky for your own good.

Ok, I understand you zealousness but your not thinking this through my kenpo friend.  I can clear this up very quickly for you and all you have to do is read Lee Wedlake's kenpo katare 201 which explains in detail the basic and exercise forms.  You will find in there that he says that the above mentioned moves in long 2 IS THE ONLY OFFENSIVE MOVES IN ANY KENPO FORM.  Now, if you are smarter and understang EPAKK more then a 1st generation senior then I am sure that you could give him a shout out and explain to him that he is wrong and YOU are correct.

"And here I thought the outward elbow-upward block-reverse punch sequence in long one started with an offensive manuever too."

Not an offensive move here my friend:  The outward elbow if the 1st example of a reverse motion and the upward elbow & punch is just the next block in that secequence (inward, outward, upward & downward).

"Let alone the double punches from destructive twins (#3 Forms) that precede any blocking action therefore making them offensive in nature." 

How can this not be defensive?  You are already being choked?  Man if someone grabed me like that I sure would have to do something to DEFEND myself.

"And there are several others that have no block but start with an attack as well. Silly me I must be mistaken though."

By all mean point them out to me and I will give you my explaination as taught to me by Lee Wedlake.

By the way: A offensive move would be a move that was not in RESPONSE TO AN ATTACK!

HOW SILLY DO WE FEEL NOW?

Don't sweat it.  We all have our opinions and we are intitled to them.  

I hope you have a great day.

By the way.  I was born and raised in Baltimore.  Man do I miss crabs, downtown and the Orioles.  if you ever come to atlanta give me a shout out. 

 :mp5:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 26, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Normaly when I put a post up and I get a silly reply I simply ignore it however this time I can't refuse. Your just to cocky for your own good.
> 
> Ok, I understand you zealousness but your not thinking this through my kenpo friend. I can clear this up very quickly for you and all you have to do is read Lee Wedlake's kenpo katare 201 which explains in detail the basic and exercise forms. You will find in there that he says that the above mentioned moves in long 2 IS THE ONLY OFFENSIVE MOVES IN ANY KENPO FORM. Now, if you are smarter and understang EPAKK more then a 1st generation senior then I am sure that you could give him a shout out and explain to him that he is wrong and YOU are correct.
> 
> ...


LOL. Everything you stated about the Kenpo System and Mr. Wedlake's book I'm fully aware of. You missed the part about point of view. In Mr. Wedlake's point of view it's the only offensive sequence. I have training with other 1st gens. who think otherwise but I tend not back my points with "Im right because (Insert Parker Black Belt name here) said so" so I'll leave the names out of it. I'll use logic instead. That's why I said an OPEN mind. I was taught things the way you described them years ago. But I was also taught to look for new viewponts and applications after the "ideal application" was understood. Just as the techniques have 3 phases so do the forms and sets. Example: The long 2 series you mentioned is indeed offensive in it's "ideal application". But that motion sequence is also applied in Ju Jitsu as a defensive maneuver on an opponents arm. So no I don't feel silly at all and I'm not being cocky. I'm just doing what I was taught to do in Kenpo. Think for myself and not be stuck on what SOMEONE ELSE SAID IS TRUE. If we all thought like that Mr. Parker would have never looked for other applications of what he was taught by Mr. Chow and American Kenpo as we know it would never have been born. Also reallize I have extensive experience in other arts (and you might too) and the motion sequences you see in American Kenpo are used differently in the other arts I've studied. A great many of the "defenses" you know are actually used offensively in other systems and can be used offensively in ours. For example Short From 1 would be an offensive "Throwing Form" if done in the Ju Jitsu I practice. All the movements are throws with slightly altered foot work alone. Like I said an OPEN MIND. The forms, like all things kenpo, are much deeper than the "Ideal application" taught to most. Another example: What's the difference between the three eye slices in Form 4 (Circling windmills offensive movement) and Snaking Talons opening movements (defensive arm trap-parries). Just a minor angle adjustment and the application in mind. They are actually the same motion applied offensively here and defensively there. Final example: What's the difference between a downward block and an armbar takedown? Where the opponent's arm is in reference to your arms. So like I said whether a move is offensive or defensive is all point of view based. Unless the ideal phase is all there is to you in your training which I hope is not the case. Just keep an OPEN MIND. The problem is I AM THINKING this through. I'm THINKING PASSED what I was initially taught to find more answers and you have to do that if you want to understand this "motion kenpo". Think about it "my kenpo friend."

Respectfully,
James

"Knowledge is power"
"power without PERCEPTION is virtually useless and therefore of no true value"

So how do you PERCEIVE those motion sequences again. And I don't mean what your instructor taught you as he'll tell you he just lays a base. How do YOU PERCEIVE those motion sequences again?

Good luck on your Martial Journey.


----------



## Michael Billings (Aug 26, 2005)

I concur here with James' post.  We can look at the IDEAL phase of any form, whether they are the epression of basics, or the techniques.  I have heard so many different applications and explanations that it literally would sound silly for me to list them all, both from 1st Gen Mr. Parker Black Belts, or from who I consider the true original "Seniors" in the art.  

 Perspective is everything, but something is to be said for learning the IDEAL.  Whether it is Lee Wedlake, Huk Palanas, Tom Kelly Sr., or Mr. Parker himself, the interpretation of the IDEAL sometimes varies.  Not only between them, but sometimes between one lesson then a review a year later, the explanation of the ideal changed.  The motion itself remains consistant, but I have heard it myself, whether stressing the timing breaks in the pokes with one - one-two, focusing on double factors throghout the form, or possible indexing and catagory completion (not my thing at all, but I am familiar with it).  

 Sarcasm does not belong here by the by.  You can always disagree, but watch the back and forth sneering almost, replies.

 -Michael


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 26, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> I concur here with James' post. We can look at the IDEAL phase of any form, whether they are the epression of basics, or the techniques. I have heard so many different applications and explanations that it literally would sound silly for me to list them all, both from 1st Gen Mr. Parker Black Belts, or from who I consider the true original "Seniors" in the art.
> 
> Perspective is everything, but something is to be said for learning the IDEAL. Whether it is Lee Wedlake, Huk Palanas, Tom Kelly Sr., or Mr. Parker himself, the interpretation of the IDEAL sometimes varies. Not only between them, but sometimes between one lesson then a review a year later, the explanation of the ideal changed. The motion itself remains consistant, but I have heard it myself, whether stressing the timing breaks in the pokes with one - one-two, focusing on double factors throghout the form, or possible indexing and catagory completion (not my thing at all, but I am familiar with it).
> 
> ...


My apologies for the jeering and sarcasm.  It was all in fun on my part but I could have stopped with proving my point.  Osu. :asian:


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Normaly when I put a post up and I get a silly reply I simply ignore it however this time I can't refuse.  Your just to cocky for your own good.
> 
> Ok, I understand you zealousness but your not thinking this through my kenpo friend.  I can clear this up very quickly for you and all you have to do is read Lee Wedlake's kenpo katare 201 which explains in detail the basic and exercise forms.  You will find in there that he says that the above mentioned moves in long 2 IS THE ONLY OFFENSIVE MOVES IN ANY KENPO FORM.  Now, if you are smarter and understang EPAKK more then a 1st generation senior then I am sure that you could give him a shout out and explain to him that he is wrong and YOU are correct.
> 
> ...


In the hopes of not sounding too cocky, I suggest you recognize the many interpretations of Mr. Parker's products as taught by him to various sources that may differ. EPAK even as you know it is not this single monolithic body of work cast in stone that never changed physically or philosophically. Mr. Parker grew, did things, grew some more and changed things everyday. Definitive statements of that type are ripe for arguments. For the record, I disagree with you as well.


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 27, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> In the hopes of not sounding too cocky, I suggest you recognize the many interpretations of Mr. Parker's products as taught by him to various sources that may differ. EPAK even as you know it is not this single monolithic body of work cast in stone that never changed physically or philosophically. Mr. Parker grew, did things, grew some more and changed things everyday. Definitive statements of that type are ripe for arguments. For the record, I disagree with you as well.


HEY! , HEY! Doc,
your'e back,..............and it seems to be buisness as usual!, loved the above, keep it going "me old china"
Richy


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Aug 27, 2005)

I completely agree with you guys about being open minded and I have been educated that way and if I appear to been 1 of the: "well so and so said it was this way" then I have mislead you.  

That being said I tend to look at the forms differently then I do the techniques.  I believe that the forms should be done as Ed Parker taught them and wanted them to be and not changed. I think the opposite about techniques.  Play, experiment, change, and mix them up as you see fit. The purpose of forms in any martial art is to preserve the motion of that particular system.  If you start changing things then you end up very far away a generation or two later and then they system no longer looks like it was intended to.  I think of forms as being like a history book and if you take that mindset you can then ask a VERY important question when trying to understand EPAK and that is:  OF ALL THE 154 TECHNIQUES WHY DID HE CHOOSE THOSE TECHNIQUES AND WHY IN THAT ORDER?

Now, do I agree that there is information in the forms that have application use?  Of course and that should be explored and experimented with and there are many variation of explanations and most I have not even seen thus far in my journey.  However, the forms should (In my opinion) be taught exactly how they are intended to be and then once that is understood and assimilated then look deeper into them but don't change them.  That was the intention of my comment and nothing more.

Now, I believe that this all started by the offensive move in long 2.  I think of an OFFENSIVE MOVE as a move that you are the 1st to take action and you are not responding to any particular type of attack.  If you follow that logic then please show me any where in the forms (1-6) that is offensive.  

Anyhow, I appreciate all the input and dont worry  I don't get emotional when I hear criticism or different opinions other then what I have been exposed to.  If that were the case I would run from Doc and not stop, think and listen.  (Back me up here Doc.) The purpose of these forums is to discuss things and get different perspectives and I think we have accomplished that.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 27, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> *However, the forms should (In my opinion) be taught exactly how they are intended to be and then once that is understood and assimilated then look deeper into them* but don't change them. That was the intention of my comment and nothing more.
> 
> Now, I believe that this all started by the offensive move in long 2. I think of an OFFENSIVE MOVE as a move that you are the 1st to take action and you are not responding to any particular type of attack. If you follow that logic then please show me any where in the forms (1-6) that is offensive.


The *bold above* is what I stated to you in short in my first post (as I mentioned nothing about changing anything) but you seemed to disagree and sited "who told you otherwise" so I explained it in detail in my second post. I'm not sure about the above statement as you described the forms "ideal application" as though they were absolutes in your responses to my first post (hense Doc's and Mr. Billings responses about many interpretataions of the "ideal" or "how they are intended" and Definitive statements) and said "I wasn't thinking this though". But that's neither here nor there moving along to answer your question.

To answer the Underlined part I'll ask you to forget the "Ideal Application" that was told to you, think 'outside the box' and 'look deeper' into the forms. Specifically pay attention to the "motion" and forget what the "attack" is intended to be.

Short Form 1: All sequences are throws, no attack necessary on the opponents part. The hand pulling to hip grabs the wrist the blocking arm executes the leverage to complete the throw. Some leverages are on the arm, some are actually on the opponents body. Example: the first step back and block can be used as 'Ouchi-Gari" from Judo/Ju Jitsu. Your left hand pulls the right wrist, the rght blocking hand strikes down on the right shoulder (leverage) the left leg stepping back sweeps the opponents right foot out from the inside.

Long Form 1: Outward Elbow(reverse motion Sequence) used offensively. Outward elbow to opponents solar pexus. Double factor block or eye slice to opponents face as the head falls from the elbow. Upward block to the opponents chin to lift it up (Just like in the Long 2 sequence). Full reverse punch to solar plexus.

Short Form 2: Inward Block and Chop at the beginning. Just like the freestyles teach you to move the opponents lead hand out of the way the initial block moves the lead hand out of the way and pulls them off balnced followed immediately with the handsword. Try it when squared off right to right against someone who carries the lead hand far from the body.

Long Form 2: The Universal Blocks, Rolling Back knuckle sequence to 6 and 12 can actualy be used as a complex method of engaging the opponents defense and then tying their hands up to execute any offensive manuever. Similar to what wing chun stylists do. Also the final push down to 1:30 can be used to pull down the opponents lead hand before rotating into the twist (guarding centerline) advancing in to deliver the obscure elbow, claw to the face and then a reverse punch followed by using the forearm strike as an armbar takedown on the arm you first grabbed.

Short Form 3: The hand trap-fulcum version of crossing talon can be done on the opponents lead hand by raising your right forearm under their wrist and then pinning their hand with your left hand and proceeding. they don't need to actually grab you.

Long Form 3: Strike version of crossing talon can be executed against the lead hand. Let your rear hand grab their wrist and pull towards your hip while you strike their elbow and proceed. It works out of a 'right to left' or 'left to right' fighting position. Thrusting Wedge against a person who carries both hands high like a boxer. Penetrates the guard, pulls the hands out of the way, and delivers a sharp elbow to the chin/face then proceed.

Form 4: Darting Leaves, block moves lead hand out of the way then proceed. Destructive Kneel is a wrestlers/grapplers arm drag on the lead hand followed by getting behind the opponent and dropping them. Thundering Hammers, use the inward 'block' to move the lead hand out of the way then proceed. Reversing Circles (see Long 2 example above) Snaking Talon or Circling Fans, engage opponenets hands to distract or trap (no attack necessary) proceed with kick. Defensive Cross, left hand pulls lead hand down right back fist strikes face and/or clears far hand down, proceed. Prance of the Tiger, Pull lead hand down (again) and proceed. Five Swords (see short 2 example above)

Form 5: Dance of Death, Move lead hand to the inside with the block and proceed. Leap of Death ( See Destructive Kneel-armdrag application above). Back Breaker, use double parries as hand trap-armdrag on lead hand, circle behind and proceed. Hopping Crane, technically the guy is getting up and therefore not attacking at this time so even though you may have defended before you are not defending now but instead attacking. Sleeper, If he carries the lead hand high, block it out of the way and proceed. Falling Falcon, Ju Jitsu Osoto-Gari with a twisting motion on the lead arm. Circling the horizon (see above examples about lead hand). Leaping Crane, use the middle knuckle on the opponents lead hand and proceed.

Form 6: Glancing Lance, intial 'defensive' movement is an armdrag into a kick, proceed. Circling the Storm (see above about lead hand and arm drag). Entwined lance, engage lead hand, chop to neck, koiuchi-gari from JuJitsu if you use the thrusting sweep with the intent to hook the leg and takedown (or just finish the technique) Broken Rod, the initial arm break can be used on an over-extended lead hand then proceed. Twisted Rod, an outside version of the lead hand maneuver used in Falling Falcon. First and Last, using just the right side or just the left side in sequence on the lead arm is actually a Lock-Flow in disquise.

Form 7: Should be self explanatory you carry two sticks, do you really need him to attack first?

Form 8: See above, but two knives.

Respectfully,
James:asian:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 27, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> I completely agree with you guys about being open minded and I have been educated that way and *if I appear to been 1 of the: "well so and so said it was this way" then I have mislead you*.





			
				Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> I can clear this up very quickly for you and *all you have to do is read Lee Wedlake's kenpo katare 201* which explains in detail the basic and exercise forms. You will find in there that *he says that the above mentioned moves in long 2 IS THE ONLY OFFENSIVE MOVES IN ANY KENPO FORM. Now, if you are smarter and understang EPAKK more then a 1st generation senior then I am sure that you could give him a shout out and explain to him that he is wrong and YOU are correct.*.


I don't think I was mislead at all by the way. That's *exactly* what you did.

Respectfully,
James:asian:


----------



## Seabrook (Aug 29, 2005)

I have to say, I am in agreement with James' posts. 

And while Lee Wedlake certainly has a vast amount of knowledge, he is but ONE source. Just because he states that that one sequence in Long 2 is the only offensive maneuver contained in the forms, doesn't make it true. I, for one, don't agree with that statement one bit. 

I don't know James, but judgng from his posts, he is very passionate about our great art. He wasn't being cocky. He just disagreed. And so do I. 

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Immortal Man Pointing the Way was how I originally learned them.  We also used them in "Poison Hand Set" before there was a Finger Set #1.
> 
> -Michael


Hi Folks!
Dear Michael,
This is the first time i've heard the set refered to as the "poison hand set"! It makes perfect sense as in the chinese martial arts they refer to closed hand strikes as "iron hand" and open hand & finger strikes as "poison hand" techniques.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Very few people would recognize that as not so much as "finger pokes," but as "Immortal Man Pointing" strikes.


 Hi Doc!
Good to see you back and hope all went well with the surgery!
To elaborate on the term "Immortal man points the way", the Wu Tang [martial alter] branch of chinese martial arts focuses on the taoist philosophy/religion and the study of longevity and in ancient times...immortality. Wu Tang is reknown for it's double edge swordplay and when weilding the sword, the other hand is placed in the "chien shou" [sword hand] with the two fingers extended so that the the two hands form a triangular action,with the sword hand extending chi down the blade to re-enforce the stabbing or slashing actions and/or to attack or defend. The "immortal man" hand position was also used by taoist priests to draw various charms or invocations in the air [ever see old kung fu zombie movies?]. the martial applications are used to strike the various cavities and vital points as well as medidian points of the body. Mr. Parker studied some of the taoist kung fu arts with Willliam C. Hu, chinese historian, who wrote the book "chinese weapons" w/ E.T. wearner for Ohara Publications. I remember Brian Adams telling me of picking up Mr. Parker from the airport once after Hhe [parker] had trained with Hu, and he seemed to look like "he was about to burst" from all the energy he felt from the taoist breathing exercises and arts he had learned!
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> If you will look at the entire form you will see most everything is done in a series of 3.  It starts with the slicing chop, 4 finger poke and spear hand and continues through out the rest of the form.  I asked Lee Wedlake about this about a year ago and I believe that he told me; That if you do a poke with the right hand and then the left hand you need to get back to the starting position so the easies way to do that is by doing another poke.  So the reason for doing everything in a series of three is to do the motion on both sides and the a third is in there to get back to the position you started from.
> 
> Hey, it makes sense to me
> 
> ...




Hi Folks!
Dear Atlanta-Kenpo,
When I was taught the kenpo forms, i was taught that the number of the form was a direct reference to the number of major actions and or strikes done during the form, although there may be acceptions to the rule, the main format for the two forms is to have a set of 2 major actions and/or strikes in the contax of the various parts of the forms.
look at the inward block/chop as 2, the horz poke/vert poke as 2, the outawrd block/punch as 2, the lead/rear punches [like a boxer's "old 1-2"] as 2, the vertical snap/snapping side sick ("if you can jab with your hand,you can jab with your foot") as 2, etc...look throughout the context of the form and you will find that a prevalent theme of the form. 
I concur with Lee's comments regarding that three actions are used return a practitioner to the power "right hand" side and complete a circular series of actions, we have both learned tai chi & kung fu, I understood where he was coming from in regards to that.
As far as it being the only offensive series...errr...hummmm...
Not sure if i agree with that one.
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Atlanta-Kenpo said:
			
		

> Normaly when I put a post up and I get a silly reply I simply ignore it however this time I can't refuse.  Your just to cocky for your own good.
> 
> Ok, I understand you zealousness but your not thinking this through my kenpo friend.  I can clear this up very quickly for you and all you have to do is read Lee Wedlake's kenpo katare 201 which explains in detail the basic and exercise forms.  You will find in there that he says that the above mentioned moves in long 2 IS THE ONLY OFFENSIVE MOVES IN ANY KENPO FORM.  Now, if you are smarter and understang EPAKK more then a 1st generation senior then I am sure that you could give him a shout out and explain to him that he is wrong and YOU are correct.
> 
> ...


Hi Folks!
Dear Atlanta-Kenpo,
Just wanted to comment on the outward elbow sequence that you elude to as only being the reverse motion of the "reverse punch". That sequence is far more than that. That particular action Mr. Parker learned from learning the southern chinese martial arts [specifically Hung Gar] wherein the form "Taming the tiger" that exact motion is introduced. To give greater insight into the sequence, visualize you are in the right forward bow facing 9 o'clock as you execute the left "reverse punch" horizontal thrust punch with your rear hand. Now have a person attack you from 3 o'clock [behind you] and grab your left shoulder with intention of pulling you to spin you around to "sucker punch" you and see how the sequence is applied [don't forget to make the anchoring elbow compound into a rolling vertical back knuckle [as in strike set 1] after the outward elbow! and have him follow up with a left punch after that happens too! Have fun with that one!
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> And here I thought the outward elbow-upward block-reverse punch sequence in long one started with an offensive manuever too. Let alone the double punches from destructive twins (#3 Forms) that precede any blocking action therefore making them offensive in nature. And there are several others that have no block but start with an attack as well. Silly me I must be mistaken though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Folks!
James, see my previous post to Atlanta-Kenpo to explain the long one sequence.
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> LOL. Everything you stated about the Kenpo System and Mr. Wedlake's book I'm fully aware of. You missed the part about point of view. In Mr. Wedlake's point of view it's the only offensive sequence. I have training with other 1st gens. who think otherwise but I tend not back my points with "Im right because (Insert Parker Black Belt name here) said so" so I'll leave the names out of it. I'll use logic instead. That's why I said an OPEN mind. I was taught things the way you described them years ago. But I was also taught to look for new viewponts and applications after the "ideal application" was understood. Just as the techniques have 3 phases so do the forms and sets. Example: The long 2 series you mentioned is indeed offensive in it's "ideal application". But that motion sequence is also applied in Ju Jitsu as a defensive maneuver on an opponents arm. So no I don't feel silly at all and I'm not being cocky. I'm just doing what I was taught to do in Kenpo. Think for myself and not be stuck on what SOMEONE ELSE SAID IS TRUE. If we all thought like that Mr. Parker would have never looked for other applications of what he was taught by Mr. Chow and American Kenpo as we know it would never have been born. Also reallize I have extensive experience in other arts (and you might too) and the motion sequences you see in American Kenpo are used differently in the other arts I've studied. A great many of the "defenses" you know are actually used offensively in other systems and can be used offensively in ours. For example Short From 1 would be an offensive "Throwing Form" if done in the Ju Jitsu I practice. All the movements are throws with slightly altered foot work alone. Like I said an OPEN MIND. The forms, like all things kenpo, are much deeper than the "Ideal application" taught to most. Another example: What's the difference between the three eye slices in Form 4 (Circling windmills offensive movement) and Snaking Talons opening movements (defensive arm trap-parries). Just a minor angle adjustment and the application in mind. They are actually the same motion applied offensively here and defensively there. Final example: What's the difference between a downward block and an armbar takedown? Where the opponent's arm is in reference to your arms. So like I said whether a move is offensive or defensive is all point of view based. Unless the ideal phase is all there is to you in your training which I hope is not the case. Just keep an OPEN MIND. The problem is I AM THINKING this through. I'm THINKING PASSED what I was initially taught to find more answers and you have to do that if you want to understand this "motion kenpo". Think about it "my kenpo friend."
> 
> Respectfully,
> James
> ...



Hi Folks!
In regards to the entire "ideal" phase application this thread has taken,Simply stated, If one does not understand the "ideal phase" of an action or series of actions, then it is far more difficult to progress to the "what if" phase because one does not know what the ideal phase was in the first place! As they expand onto the "formulation phase" they cannot differenciate between was is new formative thought and the actual original ideal application. James, you yourself state that 
" I was also taught to look for new viewponts and applications after the "ideal application" was understood" so you concur that the understanding of the ideal application is important before looking at the various interpetive elements of the a given action or series of actions. Atlanta kenpo is merely stating what he has been taught as the ideal phase from Mr. Wedlake and I concur with him as far as that being taught as the ideal phase and it's application. 
Before we can look "outside the box" we have to know what's "in the box" and more inportantly, what a box is in the first place!!
I hope that I was of some service,
KENPOJOE
PS: this is my 255th post! woohoo! LOL! but I've only got 2 reputation points... Gee, on ron's rep points it says "he's a beacon of light to all"! Gee, I need to have a telethon to raise rep points for me! :lool:


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> In regards to the entire "ideal" phase application this thread has taken,Simply stated, If one does not understand the "ideal phase" of an action or series of actions, then it is far more difficult to progress to the "what if" phase because one does not know what the ideal phase was in the first place! As they expand onto the "formulation phase" they cannot differenciate between was is new formative thought and the actual original ideal application. James, you yourself state that
> " I was also taught to look for new viewponts and applications after the "ideal application" was understood" so you concur that the understanding of the ideal application is important before looking at the various interpetive elements of the a given action or series of actions. Atlanta kenpo is merely stating what he has been taught as the ideal phase from Mr. Wedlake and I concur with him as far as that being taught as the ideal phase and it's application.
> Before we can look "outside the box" we have to know what's "in the box" and more inportantly, what a box is in the first place!!
> ...


Hey Mr. Joe. Great conversation on the phone earlier today enjoyed it.  Atlanta-Kenpo's posts read like this to me and apparently some others "This is the ideal AND ONLY application of these movements in forms X-Y-Z".  Thats where he got my "cocky" responses that were just trying to shed a bit of light on an aspect of kenpo that it didn't seem he was fully utilizing.  That aspect being the further analyzation of forms.  In my first post I alluded to applications of forms that aren't the ideal aplication.  His response was 'well Lee Wedlake said this and that's what it is, if you know better than him then go tell him that'.  He also stated that he doesn't tend to look at the forms with a 3 phase concept.  So I think he was more than merely stating what the ideal is.  He was stating the ideal as if it was the end all be all.  That was why he had a followup that mentioned HIS definition of an offensive movement and asked that others 'follow [his] logic and show him where there are offensive movements in any of the forms 1-6.  So I gave him offensive applications under HIS definition and logic for all of the forms 1-6 per his request.  So I must respectfully disagree ONLY with what you feel he was saying.  Other than that you've been of great service as always.

Respectfully, 
James

P.S. stating to me "you simply aren't thinking" and "how silly do we feel" didn't exactly help matters either.  But I had all the answers when I was a 1st degree too LOL. (That's a joke, tough crowd)

P.P.S. We'll be holding the telethon in a few short weeks.


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> P.S. stating to me "you simply aren't thinking" and "how silly do we feel" didn't exactly help matters either.  But I had all the answers when I was a 1st degree too LOL. (That's a joke, tough crowd)
> 
> P.P.S. We'll be holding the telethon in a few short weeks.



Hi Folks!
James, let's just clarify that I never said the above statements and that was "atlanta-kenpo" who wrote THOSE particular statemnts!

BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 29, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> James, let's just clarify that I never said the above statements and that was "atlanta-kenpo" who wrote THOSE particular statemnts!
> 
> BEGOOD,
> KENPOJOE


Master Joe...I know who said that! Gosh you're so sensitive!!! LOL (jking around). talk to you soon.

Edit:  Ok I'm slow....that was for me to clarify to OTHER PEOPLE that you didn't say that.  Gotcha. master Joe did not state the aforementioned comments.  They belonged to another poster.


----------



## kevin kilroe (Aug 29, 2005)

When one realizes what he knows is very little, then he knows a lot more than he did before!


----------



## KENPOJOE (Aug 29, 2005)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Hey Mr. Joe. Great conversation on the phone earlier today enjoyed it.


Hi Folks!
BTW, James, with all due respect, "Mr. Joe" is a hairdresser! LOL!
Ever since "funding companies" like EFC and their ilk decided it was more "customer friendly" to use the first name after Mr.,Miss., or Ms.
I think it's a major underminding of the teacher-student respect relationship. Sometimes a little professional is good to maintain a proper level of professionalism. If you go to a regular school, you cannot call your teacher by their first name, why should  we alow it in the martial arts? In addition, that is why the titles of sifu/shirfu, sensei, sabumnim, and guro were created in the first place. In EPAK, we use the last name after Mr,Ms. or mrs.
Sorry if I went a little off-topic :-offtopic 
Just a pet peeve I have...
BEGOOD,
KENPOJOE


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 30, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> BTW, James, with all due respect, "Mr. Joe" is a hairdresser! LOL!
> Ever since "funding companies" like EFC and their ilk decided it was more "customer friendly" to use the first name after Mr.,Miss., or Ms.
> I think it's a major underminding of the teacher-student respect relationship. Sometimes a little professional is good to maintain a proper level of professionalism. If you go to a regular school, you cannot call your teacher by their first name, why should we alow it in the martial arts? In addition, that is why the titles of sifu/shirfu, sensei, sabumnim, and guro were created in the first place. In EPAK, we use the last name after Mr,Ms. or mrs.
> ...


Ok fair enough. But to explain, I refer to all of my friends by first name. But also add "Mr., Miss., Mrs., etc. when there is a significant age or experience gap out of respect. I have considered you a great friend. I guess I perceived our net chats and phone conversations as more of a friend-friend relation than a teacher-student relation. I guess I'm also used to the fact that all of my students call me James as I see them as friends first and students second. My apologies for being a bit presumptuous, no disrepect was intended. It won't happen again Mr. Rebelo.
Salute.:asian:


----------



## Seabrook (Aug 30, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> In EPAK, we use the last name after Mr,Ms. or mrs.
> 
> KENPOJOE


Well, some do, but a LOT DON'T. Many instructors prefer to be called by their first names only, and I know a good handful that like "Mr." and then their first names. 

But I know what you are saying Joe. In my school, I have students call me "Mr. Seabrook" as opposed to "Jamie" although "Jamie" is what I prefer adults to call me outside of class. To me, "Mr. Seabrook" instills a certain level of respect from students which is important in the martial arts. It shows that time and knowledge (in this case in Kenpo) seperates us in experience. 

In my 10+ years of running my own school, I notice that all of the children that I teach ALWAYS refer to me as "Mr. Seabrook" outside of the school as well. They respect my skill and know me as "Mr. Seabrook" only. 

When I run into kids at the local mall, movie theatre ect., they often say things like "man, you look so different in street clothes, Mr. Seabrook", LOL. 


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## lonekimono10 (Aug 30, 2005)

my name is George Elmer, and you can call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinnerartyon:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Sep 8, 2005)

KENPOJOE said:
			
		

> Hi Folks!
> Dear Atlanta-Kenpo,
> When I was taught the kenpo forms, i was taught that the number of the form was a direct reference to the number of major actions and or strikes done during the form, although there may be acceptions to the rule, the main format for the two forms is to have a set of 2 major actions and/or strikes in the contax of the various parts of the forms.
> look at the inward block/chop as 2, the horz poke/vert poke as 2, the outawrd block/punch as 2, the lead/rear punches [like a boxer's "old 1-2"] as 2, the vertical snap/snapping side sick ("if you can jab with your hand,you can jab with your foot") as 2, etc...look throughout the context of the form and you will find that a prevalent theme of the form.
> ...



Hey Joe whataya know! I was shown that the One's and Two's have different timings. Single beat and double beat. I wouldn't say that the first moves in Long 2 are BOTH major moves, but in the context in which you explained it I can see the two beat timing.


----------

