# Long vs. short forms



## rschoon (Dec 28, 2005)

There are short forms 1 - 3 and long forms 1-3.   Are there short forms 4 and above?  If not, why are they called Long 4, 5 ect?

Inquiring minds need to know


----------



## Blindside (Dec 28, 2005)

There are Short 4, 5, and 6 but they aren't "official" forms, but they are out there.  I've seen Short 4 used in competition a several times and the versions I have seen looked pretty darn similar, even though the lineages of the practitioners varied widely.

From the versions that I have seen and done (we have Short 4,5,6 kicking around our curricullum as optional forms), you don't really get more from doing those forms over the long versions, it seems like requiring those is hitting the point of diminishing returns.  Short 4 is a very good competition form though.

Lamont


----------



## JamesB (Dec 28, 2005)

rschoon said:
			
		

> There are short forms 1 - 3 and long forms 1-3. Are there short forms 4 and above?


 
In general, no. Or at least, maybe some schools have added extra forms in recent years but I believe this type of addition has occurred since Mr Parker's passing rather than during his time.

For example our school in the UK (BKKU) practises a different "short 3" which I believe was Master Rose's blackbelt thesis form. Its a great form - but not one you will see too often as I should think it's fairly unique to the BKKU. 

Because of this addition our "long 3" is more familiar to people as "short 3" and we have a "short 4" which is really "long 3" - i.e. these two forms were shifted along to make room for the additional form we practise.



			
				rschoon said:
			
		

> If not, why are they called Long 4, 5 ect?
> Inquiring minds need to know


 
They aren't by everybody. I believe they are simply called "Form 4", "Form 5" etc, but are nick-named "long 4", "long 5" by convenience and by habit, and in the case of schools where extra forms were added, by necessity. But not everybody practises forms 4,5,6+ either.

The "short" versions of the forms didn't exist originally - at first there were "form 1", "form 2" and later on these forms were split apart to create the short and long versions - perhaps to provide more content for an expanding syllabus when kenpo started to get more widespread? I guess we're taking 60s/70s here.

But in general, there are no "short 4,5,6" and any form above 4 is simply "form 4,5,6"

James


----------



## Brian Jones (Dec 28, 2005)

We usedto do short 4-6, but I don't think many of our students to now.  The short forms (4-6) were used for younger students.

Brian Jones


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2005)

Although we have short 4, 5 & 6 where I come from; they are one side of each tech found in long 4, 5 & 6.  But as I consider short forms 1, 2 & 3 and notice that they are not just "one-half" of the long forms, I find I'm loosing my fondness for short 5 & 6...But I still just love short 4 for some reason that I can't put my finger on.


----------



## bayonet (Dec 30, 2005)

There is a reason Mr. Parker did not input "short" 4, 5 and 6. At this level of American Kenpo, a practicioner should be doing "long" forms 4, 5 and 6 hence, both sides. If the "short" versions are now "chic" how come Mr. Planas, Mr. Tatum, Mr. Trejo and "Doc" are not teaching this "short" version of the material? Remember,,, how and why,, you are doing short 4,5,and 6 and why not Long 4,5,6......


----------

