# Long Form 3 Question



## Shodan (Jul 19, 2006)

I have this question over at KenpoTalk but thought I'd ask it here as well for new insights, etc.

  Were any of you taught to bring your feet together at the end of the first side of Repeated Devastation (ready position before next move) and then to have your feet apart in a horse stance at the end of the second side of the same tech (ready position for next move)?  If so.....do you remember the reasoning?  I was taught this way and can't remember why.  I won't see my instructor for a few weeks so until then, I can't ask him why!!

  Thanks in advance!


----------



## Atlanta-Kenpo (Jul 25, 2006)

The footwork is that way because you are working specific lines in the forms.  You should take a look at Lee Wedlakes books/videos or Huk's Videos.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 28, 2006)

Shodan said:
			
		

> I have this question over at KenpoTalk but thought I'd ask it here as well for new insights, etc.
> 
> Were any of you taught to bring your feet together at the end of the first side of Repeated Devastation (ready position before next move) and then to have your feet apart in a horse stance at the end of the second side of the same tech (ready position for next move)? If so.....do you remember the reasoning? I was taught this way and can't remember why. I won't see my instructor for a few weeks so until then, I can't ask him why!!
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 
Category Completion of footwork.  The "feet together" is the opposite switch maneuver as the one used in the Parting Wings segment.  And I'll let you explore that step back to a horse with the right foot part....


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Category Completion of footwork. The "feet together" is the opposite switch maneuver as the one used in the Parting Wings segment. And I'll let you explore that step back to a horse with the right foot part....


 
I'm not sure I agree with this.  We also do it this way in Tracys, and I think Tracys split before the concept of Category Completion was solidified.  Back then, they were just Self Defense techniques put into a kata.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2006)

Could I get a description for Repeated Devastation?  The name is different in Tracys, and I want to make sure I am clear on which part you are talking about.  Which tech in the sequence is this?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree with this. We also do it this way in Tracys, and I think Tracys split before the concept of Category Completion was solidified. Back then, they were just Self Defense techniques put into a kata.


 
The Tracy split occured during the "category completion era".  None of the forms were ever just self-defense techniques put into a kata.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 28, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Could I get a description for Repeated Devastation? The name is different in Tracys, and I want to make sure I am clear on which part you are talking about. Which tech in the sequence is this?


 
The forward bow and elbows to 6 O'clock for the rear full nelson attempt


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The forward bow and elbows to 6 O'clock for the rear full nelson attempt


 
Gotcha.  thanks.  Not the part I was thinking of, but OK, I'll consider this.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The Tracy split occured during the "category completion era". None of the forms were ever just self-defense techniques put into a kata.


 
If the split occured before the AK Long 6 entered the curricullum, how are you completing all of the categories?  

Lamont


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> The Tracy split occured during the "category completion era". None of the forms were ever just self-defense techniques put into a kata.


 
I am sure it was not "just" techs in a kata.  I am sure more thought was put into it than just listing them out.  Things like transitions and such, but I am quite sure the forms were developed using techniques that already existed, and not the other way around.  I have seen people claim that the techniques were created from the forms, but I just don't believe that is true, and I'll explain why.

All the movements found in the forms #3 thru #5 (and some in #2 as well) which is as high as I have learned, are found in Tracys as distinct SD techs.  Tracys claim that they have kept the techs and forms the same as Mr. Parker taught them in the early days.  Tracys also state that in the early days there were no forms, only techs.  I don't know the Tracys and I am not pushing anyones agenda, but all I can do at this point is accept their word for it.

A few years ago I watched a friend test for brown belt in John Sepulveda's school here in California.  I was able to watch the candidates do all the forms up beyond #5.  All the forms were very very similar to the Tracy version.  There were some very minor differences, but they were certainly close enough to be considered the same form.  So this tells me that this part of the curriculum has not undergone a substantial change since Tracys left.

The movements in the forms are very very specific, very stylized, and are done on both sides.  The movements clearly had a very specific meaning and function.  You cannot create a form with this kind of detail, without knowing what it is for and having a purpose for the movement.  I find it impossible to believe that the forms were created first, and then SD techs were somehow extrapolated from the very specific movements in the forms.  The very specific movements in the forms already existed as SD techs.

I have seen people argue the other way around for this.  So far I have not seen any arguments that are convincing that it might have been done otherwise.  What I have seen others state is, in my opinion, simply their opinion.  But no believeable arguments to support such a claim.

Getting back to the original question in the thread: it is my belief that the first performance of the tech starts with feet together because this is the assumed position you will be in if you are surprise-attacked.  If you don't know the attack is coming, you will be in an unguarded posture, probably feet together and hands unengaged in a defensive position.  After the performance of the tech on the second side, I suspect you don't return feet together because it is a more fluid transition into the next tech of the form.

When you get a chance to ask your instructor I would be interested in hearing what he has to say.


----------



## Shodan (Jul 28, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> Category Completion of footwork.  The "feet together" is the opposite switch maneuver as the one used in the Parting Wings segment.  And I'll let you explore that step back to a horse with the right foot part....



  I found like 6 times that I step back to a horse with the right foot!!  The Category Completion for Parting Wings makes sense- thank you!!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> If the split occured before the AK Long 6 entered the curricullum, how are you completing all of the categories?
> 
> Lamont


 
The categories aren't just completed in the forms, they are also in the techniques.  And, all of the categories aren't even completed in the "official" EPAK system as the system was never "finished".  But category completion was coming about during the split to my understanding....... Certain categoriesaren't completed due to Mr. Parker's death and other aren't completed because they violate principles...


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am sure it was not "just" techs in a kata. I am sure more thought was put into it than just listing them out. Things like transitions and such, but I am quite sure the forms were developed using techniques that already existed, and not the other way around. I have seen people claim that the techniques were created from the forms, but I just don't believe that is true, and I'll explain why......


 
SOME of the techniques existed before the forms but alot of the techniques were "pulled" from the forms.  In the EPAK system, the majority of the 2nd Brown and 3rd Brown levels are refered to as the "form techniques" because these techniques are said to be derived from the forms.

Not an all inclusive list but here are a few of the EPAK techniques that came from the forms in my understanding....

Fatal Cross
Protecting Fans
Twirling Hammers
Circling Windmills
Circling Fans
Reversing Circles

I was taught that techniques that appear to be incomplete in the forms (meaining they have extra movements when done on the body) were pulled from the forms and then modified.  Techniques that are nearly identical in the form and on the body existed before the creation of the forms.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 29, 2006)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:
			
		

> SOME of the techniques existed before the forms but alot of the techniques were "pulled" from the forms. In the EPAK system, the majority of the 2nd Brown and 3rd Brown levels are refered to as the "form techniques" because these techniques are said to be derived from the forms.
> 
> Not an all inclusive list but here are a few of the EPAK techniques that came from the forms in my understanding....
> 
> ...


 
I wonder if Mr. Parker changed the approach to the forms after the Tracys split.  Perhaps the tech curriculum changed so that at least some of the techs in the forms were no longer part of the formal curriculum, but since the forms were kept, these techs were kept by default in that context.  Maybe then, people who had not learned it the old way started to reclaim and rediscover the movements in the forms, and identified them as useable techs.

The way I was taught, it was definitely presented as the techs existed and were incorporated into the forms.  What is found in short three up thru numer 5 are all taught as distinct techniques prior to learning the forms.  It is my understanding that Number 6 is as well, but I never learned beyond 5.  Some of them are altered slightly within the form, my understanding was that it was just how it was made to work withing the context of the form.  But these movements are all listed as distinct, named, self defense techs within Tracys curriculum, and are taught in the order in which they appear in the forms.  By learning the techs, you are already halfway to learning the forms, and when you learn the forms, you already fully understand the usefulness of the movement.  There are only a couple of movements within these forms that are not clearly identifiable as a formal tech in Tracys.  One example is the opening movement in Number 4, immediately following the salute, done on both sides.  That has a clear usefulness, but is not listed separately as a Tracys SD tech.

Obviously the names of the techs are different between Tracys and EPAK, so that adds a layer of difficulty in discussion.

I keep falling back to my previous statements, esp. regarding how precise and specific the movements are in the forms.  I just can't see the logic in believing the usefulness of the movement was extrapolated after the form was created.  This implies that the forms were created using all this movement, but the creator of the form didn't necessarily know what it meant, or only knew in a vague and general sort of way.  But the forms are simply too methodical and precise in their movements, including repetition on both sides, for me to believe that this could be possible.  This is primarily why I believe the forms had to be created from existing techs.  Comments made by Tracys support my beliefs, but I really think the evidence and logic weighs heavily in the direction of how I understand it.

I appreciate your comments here.  It is good to reconsider a position when someone else presents another viewpoint.  Still, I think I have to hold my position at this time.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> .....One example is the opening movement in Number 4, immediately following the salute, done on both sides. That has a clear usefulness, but is not listed separately as a Tracys SD tech.....
> 
> ....Obviously the names of the techs are different between Tracys and EPAK, so that adds a layer of difficulty in discussion....
> 
> ....I appreciate your comments here. It is good to reconsider a position when someone else presents another viewpoint. Still, I think I have to hold my position at this time.


 
That opening movement is known in EPAK as Protecting Fans.  Hense that's my point about many of the techniques being extrapolated from the forms as in the Tracy's system (Pre-EPAK Kenpo) that technique has no seperate technique name but by the time of EPAK version X.X. there is a technique name given and the technique differs in ending from the form version.  EPAK'ers know that opening movement as Protecting Fans with examples of the 'Gaseous Stage of Motion" others know it as "opening nine counts" as it's a 9 count movement with no actual technique name to them.

Yes the name difference is hurting the discussion and I lost the list some of my instructors provided me that cross referenced the EPAK names with the corresponding Tracy names.  It's in this house somewhere.... 

Still the conversation is appreciated, different ways of looking at the same apple indeed...


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 7, 2006)

What/who was the origination point of the forms?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Aug 7, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> What/who was the origination point of the forms?


 
Not having been there I would not know for certain, I am told that the forms long 1, Long 2 and 3-6 originated from Mr. Parker collaborating with others such as Lau Boon, Ark Wong, Huk Planas and Tom Kelly.  Forms 7 and 8 were created by someone else.  Doc would be someone to ask about this I would imagine.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 7, 2006)

I have heard that at least some of them, perhaps up to numbers 3 or 4, were developed by Jimmy Woo.  I can't back that claim up with certainty, but that is what I have heard.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 7, 2006)

I guess I am kind of curious... If the forms were developed for Kenpo by others ... Would they have been developed on existing techniques, or would techniques have had to have been developed for the inclusion in the forms?  Would the techniques have been taken from elsewhere, turned into a Kenpo form, then pulled apart and made into techniques?

Seems to me that, from a logic point of view, that the techniques existed before the forms were created... Or the forms existed prior to the techniques, which were then pulled out, and called Kenpo.

But... Having said all that, I can assure you, and you can ask Doc, I'm not always that logical.  :rofl:


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 7, 2006)

Sigung86 said:
			
		

> Seems to me that, from a logic point of view, that the techniques existed before the forms were created... Or the forms existed prior to the techniques, which were then pulled out, and called Kenpo.


 
From a logical point of view, it seems to me that the forms would have been created from existing techniques.  The movements are too methodical and specific to believe they were just random movements of some kind, without specific meaning and purpose.

Now it is certainly possible that the existing techniques just did not yet exist in kenpo.  COuld be they were taken from elsewhere, put into forms, and then the original techniques were slipped into the kenpo technique curriculum...


----------



## tigdra (Aug 29, 2006)

http://www.kenponet.com/flame/articles/comparison.html

Comparison list thanks to good old kenponet


----------



## jazkiljok (Aug 29, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I have heard that at least some of them, perhaps up to numbers 3 or 4, were developed by Jimmy Woo.  I can't back that claim up with certainty, but that is what I have heard.



i recall reading an interview with Jimmy Woo, him, like you said-claiming to have created all the main forms (up to 4) before his break with Ed Parker. can't recall but it was an online interview on some probably now defunct website.


----------



## Sigung86 (Aug 29, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> From a logical point of view, it seems to me that the forms would have been created from existing techniques. The movements are too methodical and specific to believe they were just random movements of some kind, without specific meaning and purpose.
> 
> Now it is certainly possible that the existing techniques just did not yet exist in kenpo. COuld be they were taken from elsewhere, put into forms, and then the original techniques were slipped into the kenpo technique curriculum...


 
Your right, of course, Michael.  I was just being silly on tht last post.

On the other hand, if your school doesn't teach book set, say for instance, you will be missing some really "betchin" techniques that the Tracy's did pull out of the form, and not the other way around.

Dan


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2006)

*Your right, of course, Michael. I was just being silly on tht last post.*

Hi Dan, I realize this, but your comment made me realize suddenly that while the techs in my opinion must have existed prior to creation of the form, (or at the very least were developed simultaneously with the form) they may have simply not yet been incorporated into the kenpo curriculum.  Creation of the form then brought the techs into kenpo from elsewhere.  I hadn't thought of that, so that was an eye-opener and I appreciate that a lot.  This would also seem to be supported by your post indicating that the original system Mr. Parker was teaching had only about 32 techs and a couple forms.  If this was true, then where did all the other techs come from?  Did Mr. Parker create them himself, or did they get pulled from other sources, or did he learn them from Mr. Chow later?  I obviously don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

*On the other hand, if your school doesn't teach book set, say for instance, you will be missing some really "betchin" techniques that the Tracy's did pull out of the form, and not the other way around.*


I think this is where the kenpo forms really differ from the Japanese and Chinese and other Asian forms.  The kenpo forms contain all these specific techniques that also exist independently in the system.

But I have studied the Chinese arts as well, and know a number of forms from Tibetan White Crane and Shaolin and others.  These forms don't have such clearly defined and specific techniques that the kenpo forms have.  We are not taught a list of SD techs which are then found in a form.  Instead, we are taught a form, and we need to analyze the movement and figure out how it is applied.  While the movements in these forms definitely have very powerful applications, they are also more open to interpreting and digging around to discover many differnt applications for the same movements.  And defining the parameters of the movement is also open to interpretation, allowing the movement to blend together in ways that the Kenpo forms seem to discourage.  Where one "movement" or "technique" starts and stops is less clearly defined, which helps to open the door to discovery and exploration.

But the kenpo forms, containing techniques that are clearly defined, have definite "starting" and "stopping" points, where the tech begins and ends. And because the kenpo forms have these very specific techniques within them, it seems that that becomes the one clear and obvious interpretation of the movement, and it sort of discourages any inclination to search for others.  It's very easy to say "I know what this move is used for" and then just move on, and not sit down and analyze it and see if it, or a portion of it, could be useful in other circumstances.

I think the Book Set was derived from a Chinese form, if I am not mistaken.  I never learned it, but I think I have seen it.   Is it also known as Little Tiger, and has a lot of breathing and dynamic tension?


----------



## Ray (Aug 30, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> *Your right, of course, Michael. I was just being silly on tht last post.*
> 
> Hi Dan, I realize this, but your comment made me realize suddenly that while the techs in my opinion must have existed prior to creation of the form, (or at the very least were developed simultaneously with the form) they may have simply not yet been incorporated into the kenpo curriculum. Creation of the form then brought the techs into kenpo from elsewhere. I hadn't thought of that, so that was an eye-opener and I appreciate that a lot. This would also seem to be supported by your post indicating that the original system Mr. Parker was teaching had only about 32 techs and a couple forms. If this was true, then where did all the other techs come from? Did Mr. Parker create them himself, or did they get pulled from other sources, or did he learn them from Mr. Chow later? I obviously don't know, but it's interesting to think about.
> 
> ...


Book Set was derived from a Hung Gar (or Hun Ga) Kung Fu set.

As far as the predefined self-defense techs in Kenpo Forms: Yes, we have the SD techs and they are in the forms. However, the same movements can have different applications...we still play around with the different applications that might live in the forms.

Heck, we even "play around" with the SD techs to find other applications for them. 

Anyone who thinks that a movement (or series of movments) has one and only one possible application is doing themselves a disservice.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Book Set was derived from a Hung Gar (or Hun Ga) Kung Fu set.
> 
> As far as the predefined self-defense techs in Kenpo Forms: Yes, we have the SD techs and they are in the forms. However, the same movements can have different applications...we still play around with the different applications that might live in the forms.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you.  I just think that the way the kenpo forms are structured, with techs that also exist separately, can cause people to be lazy about exploring other options, that's all.  In a way, it can be too much like being served all the answers on a silver platter.  If you are spoon-fed, you don't learn to explore and figure things out for yourself.

I'm not saying everyone does this.  I'm just saying that there is this danger to be wary of.

By the way, if anyone knows specifically which Hung Gar form the Book Set was derived from, I'd be interested in knowing this.  I have seen this suggested a couple of times, but nobody has suggested which one in particular.  I know some people who trained in Hung Gar, including my Sifu altho he doesn't teach it.  I'd like to make a comparison, if possible.


----------

