# short form 3 question



## kenpo_disciple (Aug 25, 2006)

In short form 3, why when we do crossing talons we dont execute the knee to the face? Now i know that in the technique forms some techniques dont get completed or some moves are added but is there a specific reason why we dont do the knee here?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 25, 2006)

Showing the knee would put a move inbetween the marriage of gravity powered elbow in Crossing talon and it's opposite. That opposite is the headbutt in Scraping Hoof which is powered by Reverse marriage of gravity. We sink down to power one blow in one technique and then rise to power the next blow in the next technique. Showing the knee would split these two moves and make this particular opposite a bit harder to see. Also the right knee is shown latter in Locked Wing planting forward while the next technique Crossed Twigs uses a left knee planting backward. Another opposite and reverse...

The missing knee is to make you think, "why is this missing?"

"Kenpo Forms do not represent and imaginary fight, they are there to illustrate the principles of motion with regards to Opposites and Reverses"


----------



## Doc (Aug 25, 2006)

kenpo_disciple said:
			
		

> In short form 3, why when we do crossing talons we dont execute the knee to the face? Now i know that in the technique forms some techniques dont get completed or some moves are added but is there a specific reason why we dont do the knee here?


What do you mean "we?" NEVER assume everyone does anything the same in Kenpo. That would be a big mistake and could stifle your learning process. Look at everything from the perspective of YOUR lessons from YOUR teacher and do not extrapolate them to others.

Not everyone leaves the knee out. The answer lies in what YOUR teachers reason is for leaving it out.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2006)

Does this mean that you execute that knee in this form, Doc?


----------



## Doc (Aug 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Does this mean that you execute that knee in this form, Doc?


No, but many old shool Kenpoists I know do. I do not do "Short Three" as outlined in the commercial curriculum, although you would recognize the SL-4 interpretation. "Short Three" is the last of the forms NOT dedicated to the 'motion concept,' and we do not teach any of the commercial forms beyond "Short Three."


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 25, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> No, but many old shool Kenpoists I know do. I do not do "Short Three" as outlined in the commercial curriculum, although you would recognize the SL-4 interpretation. "Short Three" is the last of the forms NOT dedicated to the 'motion concept,' and we do not teach any of the commercial forms beyond "Short Three."


 
Wow Doc! No "mother form" Form 4?


----------



## Doc (Aug 25, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Wow Doc! No "mother form" Form 4?


From an SL-4 perspective, it's of no value and full of anatomical inconsistencies.


----------



## Jim Hanna (Aug 26, 2006)

Doc,

You are the only other person besides myself that I can think of who speaks such blasphemy, although my criticism was originally generated from a more instinctive feeling rather than a scientific analysis.

Jim


----------



## Doc (Aug 26, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> You are the only other person besides myself that I can think of who speaks such blasphemy, although my criticism was originally generated from a more instinctive feeling rather than a scientific analysis.
> 
> Jim


You know Big Jim, 'blasphemy' is my middle name. Your background keeps you grounded in reality, so it's difficult to slide 'bullshirt' pass you.


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 26, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> From an SL-4 perspective, it's of no value and full of anatomical inconsistencies.


 
Hey Doc, I have not been in here for awhile, glad to see you are still "at it", OK are you really stating that Form Four should be categorised under the heading useless?
Keep stirring the pot, me old china.
Rich


----------



## Doc (Aug 26, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Hey Doc, I have not been in here for awhile, glad to see you are still "at it", OK are you really stating that Form Four should be categorised under the heading useless?
> Keep stirring the pot, me old china.
> Rich


As a whole, yes it's a 'useless' form. There are small elements to it that have validity, but as a complete from, if I attempted to teach it to my students they would riddle me with questions about anatomical and moral discrepancies from the Parker philosophy as they know it. This is the problem with preserving a commercial entity intact and promoting it as 'the kenpo' instead of 'a kenpo.' Because of the business nature of its design, you're constantly running into 'fluff' placed for the business with no regard for its physical effectiveness or moral implications as reflected in many of its techniques, forms, and sets. However in its defense, Mr. Parker hid some jewels of information in that system that once interpreted correctly can send you in a whole new direction. However without a significant base of foundational and advance knowledge, no one would ever find it. But then what do I know? 

Stay loose Rich.


----------



## pete (Aug 26, 2006)

the forms are the text books of a martial art. from times when there was little or no written manuals or books it was the form that was closely guarded by the master, taught precisely to chosen students *indoor students* and passed down to future generations.  as the applications or techniques may vary through the years, the forms remained a constant. when a new master decided to alter the form, he would in fact be creating a new style, while those faithful to the original teachings would continue to teach the form as they were taught under the original name.

if that makes sense, the forms in American Kenpo are more like chapters in a text book, since there are several forms rather than one single form to represent the essence of the art.  

a complete martial art, as defined by the chinese, must contain striking (da), kicking (ti), takedowns (shuai), and joint locking (qinna). This is so because these skills are mutually supportive and mutually destructive. American Kenpo meets those requirements and catalogues the essence of each of these as chapters within its text book, its forms.

Form 4 is the chapter on striking and kicking.  To omit form 4 from the art would leave American Kenpo with an incomplete textbook and thus an art which would be exposed to many common attacks.


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 26, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> To omit form 4 from the art would leave American Kenpo with an incomplete textbook and thus an art which would be exposed to many common attacks.


Thats great pete, but what you are indicating is that you have to wait until form four to complete your textbook of common attacks,even after studying a154 SDTs, a dozen or so Sets and a previous 6 forms you are just completing your common attacks folder and still indexing kicking and striking, I think that this work is done at an earlier level of training and that "4" would move us on to a different area of analytical study.
And as for that old "heretic" Doc, if Iam being honest there are areas of "4" that I have questioned other seniors on and had some very unsatisfactory answers , thats probably why they all bug off and do Tai Chi at some point, but Doc Iam sticking with "4" because as you know I don't like walking away from anything ?
Rich
stubborn Old Geordie Git


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2006)

Jim Hanna said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> You are the only other person besides myself that I can think of who speaks such blasphemy, although my criticism was originally generated from a more instinctive feeling rather than a scientific analysis.
> 
> Jim


 
While our approach is different, i've been in this club for a while...


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> While our approach is different, i've been in this club for a while...


WE'RE ALL GOING TO HELL.


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Thats great pete, but what you are indicating is that you have to wait until form four to complete your textbook of common attacks,even after studying a154 SDTs, a dozen or so Sets and a previous 6 forms you are just completing your common attacks folder and still indexing kicking and striking, I think that this work is done at an earlier level of training and that "4" would move us on to a different area of analytical study.
> And as for that old "heretic" Doc, if Iam being honest there are areas of "4" that I have questioned other seniors on and had some very unsatisfactory answers , thats probably why they all bug off and do Tai Chi at some point, but Doc Iam sticking with "4" because as you know I don't like walking away from anything ?
> Rich
> stubborn Old Geordie Git


Richie, you're such a pit bull with a bone.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> No, but many old shool Kenpoists I know do. I do not do "Short Three" as outlined in the commercial curriculum, although you would recognize the SL-4 interpretation. "Short Three" is the last of the forms NOT dedicated to the 'motion concept,' and we do not teach any of the commercial forms beyond "Short Three."
> 
> From an SL-4 perspective, it's of no value and full of anatomical inconsistencies


 
Question for you Doc.  Regarding the first statement, am I safe to assume that you do do Short 3, but have made changes to it?  Regarding the second statement, are you saying that everything after Short 3 has the anatomical inconsistencies that you're referring to?

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Question for you Doc.  Regarding the first statement, am I safe to assume that you do do Short 3, but have made changes to it?  Regarding the second statement, are you saying that everything after Short 3 has the anatomical inconsistencies that you're referring to?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike


No sir, I haven't made 'changes' to Short Three. Simply, it was explained and taught to me differently than the version that made it into the commercial system. Yes, everything after Short Form Three has significant irreconcilable anatomical inconsistencies. Certainly there are elements that are acceptable. Even mis-spelled words contained letters that of themselves are correct. Its the useage and spelling that makes the word(s) or applications wrong.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> No sir, I haven't made 'changes' to Short Three. Simply, it was explained and taught to me differently than the version that made it into the commercial system. Yes, everything after Short Form Three has significant irreconcilable anatomical inconsistencies. Certainly there are elements that are acceptable. Even mis-spelled words contained letters that of themselves correct. Its the useage and spelling that makes the word(s) wrong.


 
Thanks Doc!  One of these days, I need to find my way to CA.  As always, its easier to understand things when you can see them up close and in person.  It would be good to spend some time, seeing first hand the SL4 method.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Aug 27, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks Doc!  One of these days, I need to find my way to CA.  As always, its easier to understand things when you can see them up close and in person.  It would be good to spend some time, seeing first hand the SL4 method.
> 
> Mike


It would be my pleasure sir.


----------



## pete (Aug 27, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Thats great pete, but what you are indicating is that you have to wait until form four to complete your textbook of common attacks,even after studying a154 SDTs, a dozen or so Sets and a previous 6 forms you are just completing your common attacks folder and still indexing kicking and striking, I think that this work is done at an earlier level of training and that "4" would move us on to a different area of analytical study.


the techniques are the applications to be trained on a live opponent, the sets isolate specific skills, while the forms provide a way to develop a body method in solo practice. while the techniques may be tweaked and mutated to adapt to various applications and what-ifs, the forms remain constant and unchanged to form the basis by which the applications can be infinite.


			
				kenpoworks said:
			
		

> thats probably why they all bug off and do Tai Chi at some point.


not a bad idea, i have and encourage it! a little Ba Gua too... my kenpo has improved from the lessons learned from those traditional arts and the excellent teachers i've found there...

pete


----------



## JamesB (Aug 27, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> From an SL-4 perspective, it's of no value and full of anatomical inconsistencies.


 
From my perspective I view form#4 as a 'technique' form - so I think what you're getting at is that the 'motion' techniques themselves are problemetic? I am also guessing that your syllabus contains at least some of the techniques from form#4 (techs with the same name but with the SL-4 methodology of course). So I am wondering what other reasons there are for not have an SL-4 version of form#4? 

Off the top of my head: 
A- not necessary because all the prior SL-4 forms/techs/syllabus contain the same information and form#4 is redundant? 
B- 'motion' form#4 is teaching more than just techniques and this is what conflicts with the SL-4 approach?


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 27, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> the techniques are the applications to be trained on a live opponent, the sets isolate specific skills, while the forms provide a way to develop a body method in solo practice. while the techniques may be tweaked and mutated to adapt to various applications and what-ifs, the forms remain constant and unchanged to form the basis by which the applications can be infinite.
> not a bad idea, i have and encourage it! a little Ba Gua too... my kenpo has improved from the lessons learned from those traditional arts and the excellent teachers i've found there...
> 
> pete


 
Techniques (especially dare I say it the Exstensions)I do not pidgeon hole these stories of motion specifically to interactive scenarios even though thats what they are predominanttly used for!


Forms I think that you have contadicted yourself here, I will go along with what you are saying, in a nutshell Sets & Forms give speculative interpretations as well as specific answers!


A Kenpo instructor of mine (there are two), also studied Ba Gua and has shown me how walking the circle can be adopted or adapted by kenpoka.very very interesting. As for Tai Chi, not so many real instructors around, they all tell you they are good (a bit like Kenpo) but when you train with them you find that they should probably train with you or your instructors (just like kenpo).


Pete I have every Set (except one), Form, Technique and Basic that The parker System has, all learned and worked in class under instruction from recognised teachers, I have an Ok working Knowledge (for my rank) of what Doc calls motion kenpo, but every now and again I just love throwing it all in the mixer with a couple shovels of WTF and see what I (we) come up with.

Yeh Doc ! you are on the fast track to hell after the ritual burning at the stake, us English are good all that stuff , dont you know old boy!

Rich
apprentice Heretic.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> WE'RE ALL GOING TO HELL.


 
I'll have a frosty beer waiting for you...


----------



## kenpo_disciple (Aug 28, 2006)

kenpo_disciple said:
			
		

> In short form 3, why when we do crossing talons we dont execute the knee to the face? Now i know that in the technique forms some techniques dont get completed or some moves are added but *is there a specific reason why we dont do the knee here?[/*quote]
> 
> OK, for the people who run the form this way (without the knee) what may be the reason you dont insert the knee here? is it just because your instuctor taught it to you this way or did he/her give a ''reason''. just a little curious as to what _your_ explainations would be. 23 reply's and only one person gave his ''reason'' why. i would like to see what others were told/shown about this.
> 
> thank you


----------



## Doc (Aug 28, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> From my perspective I view form#4 as a 'technique' form - so I think what you're getting at is that the 'motion' techniques themselves are problemetic? I am also guessing that your syllabus contains at least some of the techniques from form#4 (techs with the same name but with the SL-4 methodology of course). So I am wondering what other reasons there are for not have an SL-4 version of form#4?
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> A- not necessary because all the prior SL-4 forms/techs/syllabus contain the same information and form#4 is redundant?
> B- 'motion' form#4 is teaching more than just techniques and this is what conflicts with the SL-4 approach?


Significant irreconcilable anatomical inconsistencies in what is known as  Form 4 in the commercial system.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2006)

kenpo_disciple said:
			
		

> kenpo_disciple said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think the one answer that was provided did a pretty good job explaining several possible reason why the knee does not exist in Crossing Talons. 

His answer was certainly more complete than the answer I was working my way through. We do execute the right knee strike in the Locked Wing technique. Followed by the left knee in Crossed Twigs. That is where I was headed in my thought pattern. 

One thought that occurs to me as to why the knee strikes are in these techniques, is because each of these techniques uses a 'sandwich' action with the knee strike. Locked Wing has the downward handsword, Crossed Twigs has the downward heel palm strikes. In Crossing Talons, the downward elbow is shown before the knee strike.

I don't use the term 'Reverse Marriage of Gravity' or 'Divorce of Gravity' when describing an upward strike, such as the headbutt in Scraping Hoof, but that is a minor inconsistancy. The power principle in play in Scraping Hoof is Back up Mass - Your body weight moving in line with your strike - Back up Mass on a vertical line, there. 

Lastly, Huk will be in town in a couple of weeks. You can always ask him


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't use the term 'Reverse Marriage of Gravity' or 'Divorce of Gravity' when describing an upward strike, such as the headbutt in Scraping Hoof, but that is a minor inconsistancy. The power principle in play in Scraping Hoof is Back up Mass - Your body weight moving in line with your strike - Back up Mass on a vertical line, there.
> 
> Lastly, Huk will be in town in a couple of weeks. You can always ask him


 
Hi Michael,
I too rarely use the term"RMOG" these days and have never used the term "Divorce of Gravity" usually I simply use the term "Lift" e.g. "to generate lift for this move you have to..." or something along those lines.
Even "MOG" is being replaced more and more in my classes with "drop",settle, stabilise etc.
I liked your ideas on SF3, but I dont do a hand sword in the Locked Wing segment?
Rich
ps oh yeh, who is hulk?


----------



## JamesB (Aug 28, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Significant irreconcilable anatomical inconsistencies in what is known as Form 4 in the commercial system.


 
I think I understand....it's difficult to put the components of the syllabus in context as it's exactly that from my point of view - a 'syllabus', which I've not gotten to grips with yet. So it seems that Form-4, as it is popularly known, was a departure from the Parker teachings prior to it's existance. Is there a timeline for the creation of this later material? When and where was form-4 developed, and how was this material typically spread around the schools? I'm guessing that the new material was conceived at the Pasadena school and was most familiar to those who trained there at that time?

Also you say that you were taught short-3 differently than how it is taught today - would this also mean that short-3 was modified at a later date (for mass consumption) to include more motion principles? I'm also wondering how much short-1, long-1 etc have changed over the years or are they pretty consistent?

sorry that's a whole bunch of questions - I'll settle for an answer to any one of the above  

thanks,
James


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 28, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Also you say that you were taught short-3 differently than how it is taught today -?
> thanks,
> James


 
Hey James,
I dont know about Short 3, but I do know that Mr. Parker personally taught Long 3 to all the Senior BlackBelts in Europe ( a form which of course they already had) over a two day period in Jersey, Shortly before his passing (along with a "rake" of other stuff), it is all on tape, There is a question and answer segment in which he revealed so much, I have never seen anyone work a chalkboard like him, I was there as a 1st degree, stuck at the back sucking up that feeling.
Rich


----------



## Doc (Aug 28, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I think I understand....it's difficult to put the components of the syllabus in context as it's exactly that from my point of view - a 'syllabus', which I've not gotten to grips with yet. So it seems that Form-4, as it is popularly known, was a departure from the Parker teachings prior to it's existance.


Almost. Long Three came before Long Form Four and is similar in concept, and therefore is also based on being 'semetrically motion sound' over anatomically sound body mechanics.


> Is there a timeline for the creation of this later material? When and where was form-4 developed, and how was this material typically spread around the schools?


Continuously from the late sixties into the early seventies as the business model developed and was expanded. The bulk was completed in the early seventies, with other material added 'as necessary' and/or as 'business dictated.' Most was disseminated through the business operations manual known as "Big Red." It included everything from how to answer the phone and field questions to outline ideas of the available form, sets, and techniques. Students were given 'outline booklets' color coded for each rank with a list of exercises, everything to be learned for testing, and check off boxes for what had been 'taught,' 'learned,' and tested for. These never made it beyond 'green.' Ultimately "Big Red" died as people broke away from Parker, and students were sold the 'technique manual' part of "Big Red" to create a money stream, and to help standardize the 'technique ideas.' These 'technique manuals' replaced the belt booklets.


> I'm guessing that the new material was conceived at the Pasadena school and was most familiar to those who trained there at that time?


Not necessarily. Material and ideas flowed from many sources, with Mr. Parker assigning 'projects' to many of his students near and far. Then he would accept, reject, or refine the material as he saw fit. Sometimes it debuted in Pasadena, sometimes not. As an example, he had several people working on the adjustment of the commercial charts down from 32 to ultimately 16, and he approved all of the versions I was aware of. He allowed some to stay with the 32, some to move to the 24 (which he published), but still others to 16 which he didn't have time to publish. I was assigned a thesis for my 7th to help standardize rank amoug the diverse students coming to, and residing in the IKKA. I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one.


> Also you say that you were taught short-3 differently than how it is taught today -


Careful with generalities. There are as many versions as there are teachers and practitioners. THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR MOTION KENPO - ONLY GENERAL GUIDELINES. Diversity was acceptable and encouraged by Mr. Parker, as long as the teacher/student accepted responsibility for his interpretation. He advised and guided, but never changed what teachers and students did. He wasn't available to finitely 'mold' those who called themselves 'students,' so he attempted to teach them to think for themselves.


> would this also mean that short-3 was modified at a later date (for mass consumption) to include more motion principles? I'm also wondering how much short-1, long-1 etc have changed over the years or are they pretty consistent?


See above. There is no standard. The written version of the forms was published after his death, and teachers always have taught their interpretation. Remember, (and this is important), Mr. Parker after the fifties didn't teach 'basics.' Everything is based on basic skills, and Parker began teaching 'basic concepts' to allow students to work on their own because of his absence. How do you do a "Short From One" based on 'basic blocks,' if you haven't definitively taught the blocks in question. Partly because of his absence, and partly because EVERYTHING (motion and otherwise) was/is a work in progress.


----------



## JamesB (Aug 29, 2006)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> Hey James,
> I dont know about Short 3, but I do know that Mr. Parker personally taught Long 3 to all the Senior BlackBelts in Europe ( a form which of course they already had) over a two day period in Jersey, Shortly before his passing (along with a "rake" of other stuff), it is all on tape, There is a question and answer segment in which he revealed so much, I have never seen anyone work a chalkboard like him, I was there as a 1st degree, stuck at the back sucking up that feeling.
> Rich


 
it's always interesting to hear about the history of our art - thanks for sharing!


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 29, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> it's always interesting to hear about the history of our art - thanks for sharing!


No problem James, apparently Mr Parker visited Jersey (20 times I think) more times than anywhere else in Europe, his relationship with it was and still is special, so I would say that Jersey is more of a living statement to Mr. Parker, because of what he left behind here.
Rich


----------

