# Short Form 1



## MJS (May 3, 2006)

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]* 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Drop your right foot back to 6 :00, into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 9 :00. Step with your right foot to 3 :00, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right inward block followed by left outward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Drop your left foot back to 3 :00 into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward right outward block combination and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 3 :00, moving your right foot forward to "cover." Settle into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right high inward block followed by a left upward block and right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Drop your left foot back to 9 :00 into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left high inward block followed by a right upward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 6 :00, drawing your foot up to a transitional cat stance, executing a left inward downward block palm up (active check). Step back with your left foot towards 12 :00, into a right neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right outward downward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8. Drop your right foot back to a 12 :00, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right inward downward block palm up, followed by a left downward outward block palm down and right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]9. Step clockwise with your left foot to 12 :00, returning to a meditative horse stance, thus returning to point of origin.[/SIZE][/FONT] *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Repeat on opposite side.[/SIZE][/FONT]*

Thought that we could discuss this form. I'd like to break this down, discussing differences in the way you may have been taught, what the form is teaching you, and what it contains.

Defensive moves, stances such as neutral bow, attention and horse, basic blocks, double factor, back elbow strike while blocking, and blocking while retreating are just a few of the many things contained in this form.

Anyone else?

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (May 3, 2006)

Method of Execution.

The first block is a *hammering* inward block ... because the blocking hand is up.
The second block is a *thrusting* inward block ... because the blocking hand is down.


----------



## HKphooey (May 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Method of Execution.
> 
> The first block is a *hammering* inward block ... because the blocking hand is up.
> The second block is a *thrusting* inward block ... because the blocking hand is down.


 
I was taught the same thing.  I also learned to solidify my stance/base as I executed each block.

IMO, this kata is a great base for a student's training.  The better the student learns this base information, the better they will be as a black belt. The can work on their stances, blocks, transitions, torque/counter-tourqe, retreating, footwork and blocking combinations.


----------



## AvPKenpo (May 3, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]*
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 6 :00, drawing your foot up to a transitional cat stance, executing a left inward downward block palm up (active check). Step back with your left foot towards 12 :00, into a right neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right outward downward block and left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]


 
There are so many details to go over on this form. 
7. From right upward block facing 3 in right neutral bow turn your head towards six move left foot from its 9 o'clock position to 12 o'clock. Unpivot smartly on the balls of your feet towards 6 o'clock, executing a left downward block palm up followed by a right downward block palm down, chambering left arm for possible elbow strike to 12 o'clock.

I will be releasing hopefully this year a tape of SGM Parker teaching short form one in a seminar to a group of BB's. SGM Parker covers everything in this form, from concepts to applications. There are many other form tapes from the same weekend of seminars I believe all the way to form 6. Not sure when or if we will release those though.

There is so much to cover in this form, this is the only step I am going to cover right now.

From a Warrior to Scholars
Michael


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 3, 2006)

i love to mess with this form, even in my advanced classes.  

a drill we do lately is to count the form off as usual, only for each count the student must execute a technique that begins with the appropriate block (i.e. delayed sword for step 2 or checking the storm for step 5).

another is to do short one's hand work with short 2's footwork, or vice versa.  there's some interesting stuff there.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 3, 2006)

and while i'm at it...

how many practice it with the supporting parries?

the first school i trained at included them, the second i trained at did not...


----------



## HKphooey (May 3, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> and while i'm at it...
> 
> how many practice it with the supporting parries?
> 
> the first school i trained at included them, the second i trained at did not...


 
Good point.  Glad youmentioned it.  Should get some more feedback to the post.

I originally learned it that way and then later messed around with close-fisted blocks/strikes.


----------



## JamesB (May 3, 2006)

The way I teach+practice this form at the moment is to use a transitional forward-bow between neutral-bows whenever we step back. So the order would be:

1. Step back with left foot to a foward bow, chamber right fist (above shoulder height) for a hammering inward block
2. Pivot to right-neutral blow with a right inward-block, chambering the left fist at the side of the chest.
3. Leaving the blocking arm in position, Pivot back to a right-transitional-forward-bow
4. Step back with right foot to a left transitional-forward-bow, chambering the left arm for an inward-block.
5. Pivot to a left-neutral-bow with a left inward-block, chambering the right fist at the side of the chest.

And so on...(note I typed this out quick hope I didn't miss anything)

In makes execution of the form alot easier, and teaching it to beginners is easier also (although it takes longer)...their forms look so much sharper and more powerful with the extra transitions when compared to stepping 'straight back' to those neutral bow's.


----------



## Ross (May 4, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> The way I teach+practice this form at the moment is to use a transitional forward-bow between neutral-bows whenever we step back. So the order would be:
> 
> 1. Step back with left foot to a foward bow, chamber right fist (above shoulder height) for a hammering inward block
> 2. Pivot to right-neutral blow with a right inward-block, chambering the left fist at the side of the chest.
> ...


 
Nearly James,
Thinking about the footwork only, from a ready position,
1. step back with your left foot into a transitional forward bow.
2. turn your right foot to make a forward bow,
3. turn your left foot to make a neutral bow.

Reverse this to step back into a left neutral bow.

Hope that makes sense.

Also, some points that are generally overlooked is the positioning of the feet, upper and lower platforms (no twisting at the waist) and shoulders in alignment. I tend to find a good teaching tool is to get the students to freeze when you say and then go round and check them.  

Just remember "Everything matters!" - you'll be hearing that a lot next time you're down. 

Of course after your next grading, it's infinitly more specific than this!! But that fun is yet to come!


----------



## JamesB (May 4, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> Nearly James,
> Thinking about the footwork only, from a ready position,
> 1. step back with your left foot into a transitional forward bow.
> 2. turn your right foot to make a forward bow,
> ...


 
doh! thought I'd forgotten something when I typed it out. I usually also find that emphasising the "neutral-bow is a horse=stance" really helps beginners to figure out what their hips+shoulders should be doing....i.e. when a student is not quite "there" I move to their side and say "look at me from a horse-stance" and their hips+shoulders kind of snap into place....then I turn their head back to facing 12 and it slowly sinks in...

now I just gotta get that footwork sorted...and *how* can it can any more complex than what you've just said :erg: LOL!!!


----------



## Ross (May 4, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> now I just gotta get that footwork sorted...and *how* can it can any more complex than what you've just said :erg: LOL!!!


 
That's the rub!


----------



## bujuts (May 4, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.[/SIZE][/FONT]*
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Thought that we could discuss this form. I'd like to break this down, discussing differences in the way you may have been taught, what the form is teaching you, and what it contains.
> ...


 
I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips.  We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike.  But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.

In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms.  We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application.  If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student.  But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.

What do you guys think about the notion of cocking of the hands at the hips?

Thanks,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## michaeledward (May 4, 2006)

In reading the last few posts ... I am interested in why these differences are set out.

Short Form 1 is the base of the American Kenpo System. Without it as a strong foundation, isn't the material that follows, in Long 1, Short & Long 2 and the Technique Forms, building from an unstable base? 

The foot manuevers in Short Form 1 are Step Thru foot maneuvers. Why add the 'And Then' of the settle out of the Forward Bow? Isn't one of the goals of Kenpo to eliminate the 'And Thens'?

In Short Form 1, we load our non blocking hand at our hip because it is a Basics Form. We are learning to solidify our base as we solidify our strike. Our primary focus should be the footwork and front hand block. 

The Rear elbow is a function of the 'Sophisticated Basic' ... We never cock as a separate move. So, as we block, we cock the weapon for the next block (strike). With 'Sophisticated' idealogy, isn't an advanced thought process of the rear elbow strike accurate? 

In Short Form 2, we start to put our hands in realistic fighting positions.

In Long Form 2, we put our hands back at our hips because (as I was told) Parker Forms teach the full range of motion.

So, anyhow, I am still a beginner, but, I am sceptical of these extra thought processes as you discuss them. All of the forms work together to catalogue the American Kenpo System. How do these recommended changes fit into the entire catalogue of all the forms? 

That's my $.02.


----------



## HKphooey (May 4, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.
> 
> In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.
> 
> ...


 
Good point...

I guess one would have to know how the application was taught.  To just say you are doing a rear elbow - I would agree with you.  But to say your are blocking while retreating in the the unknown - then I would tell the student you are preparing for another possible attacker behind you.  I have always looked at forms as a base on which to formulate one's own ideas.


----------



## JamesB (May 4, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.


 
yes it's my understanding that the 'back elbow' is just a what-if / motion concept. It could be there, but the form should not be trained that way as the chambering of the fist is designed to support your body-structure and block.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.
> 
> What do you guys think about the notion of cocking of the hands at the hips?


 
We chamber our hands/arm at the side of our chest rather than hips, for all our basics/forms/sets etc, and whenever appropriate within a technique.

In my experience, there is a noticable difference in the strength of the blocking arm if the opposing arm is not correctly chambered. The fist should be chambered at the side of the chest rather than the waist - with the fist facing upwards, and the forearm parallel to the floor. If the arm is not chambered this way the blocking/striking arm will not be as effective, at least in my experience. It is quite simple to verify this by testing the strength of the blocking arm (get someone else to do it) - and experimenting with the chambered arm in different positions. I've found that chambering at the side of the chest stablises the upper body and is significantly stronger (and therefore more effective I'd argue) than not doing it this way.

I'd be interested in hearing about any mechanisms that could be used (aside from slapchecking/BAMing) which might counter the loss of structure by not chambering the arms..

james


----------



## bujuts (May 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In reading the last few posts ... I am interested in why these differences are set out.
> ...
> The Rear elbow is a function of the 'Sophisticated Basic' ... We never cock as a separate move. So, as we block, we cock the weapon for the next block (strike). With 'Sophisticated' idealogy, isn't an advanced thought process of the rear elbow strike accurate?
> ...


 
Absolutely, Sir. No doubt about it. It IS an advanced thought, but that being said, isn't this really just an advanced construct of ours when probing deeper into a basic form?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> In Long Form 2, we put our hands back at our hips because (as I was told) Parker Forms teach the full range of motion.


 
True, cocking the hand does teach that, but was the form designed specifically with that intent, or was it designed to parallel classical motions? The question is, WHY is the motion in there except for adherence to classical methods? Did the creator of this form (Mr. Parker?, I'm not certain) really have advanced applications in his mind when devising this for a beginning student, or was the cocking of the hand at the hips done to parallel the basic motions of the classical karate / kenpo / kempo from which this system evolved? I've heard stories of him being criticized in is early career for kenpo's lack of forms, but do not know if this is true, or if it had any bearing on the development of the forms we know today.

My basic premise is that we don't "cock" our hands in application, even if done simultaneously with another motion, so why is the Short Form 1 constructed this way? Finally, we all know that full range of motion does not really add to power or efficiency, but rather these are products of alignment. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> In Short Form 2, we start to put our hands in realistic fighting positions.


 
I pose in this post question and not answers - what is it about these motions in Short Form 2 that we feel an orange or purple belt (learning Short Form 2) is ready for that a white belt (learning Short Form 1) is not? Simultaneity of the hands? Coordination? Why do we teach the white belt motions (the cocking of the hands) that we do not want him or doing in application (because we steer them away from this in Short Form 2), save for the hips being a common reference point they can return to when learning?

Broad questions, I know, and unusual, but thanks, I look forward to any responses.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## bujuts (May 4, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in hearing about any mechanisms that could be used (aside from slapchecking/BAMing) which might counter the loss of structure by not chambering the arms..
> james


 
I can't speak to the details of BAMing, as I may be aware of something similar but by different terminology.

As for slap checking, we just don't do it. One thing I've brought up in the past on slap checking is that it seems to accentuate power at the end of the motion, but I don't know to what extent it adds power during the path of motion. In other words, if the blocking arm encounters resistance before the "slap" is able to be executed, or if the timing is not a discrete action (say, an inward block used in contact manipulation), is the power in that block diminished? I am largely ignorant of slap checking, have not been taught it, my teacher intentionally does not endorse it, therefore I genuinely know nothing about it.

I'd have to see how mechanical structure is enhanced by having the hand at the hip, I just don't understand it. Its one thing to talk about the end of a path of action, where the blocking arm and cocking hand arrive at their destination in unison - this is the same sort of instance of simultaneity as slap checking, it seems. But its another thing to talk about power through the path of action. Similar to the above discussion on slap checking, does the practitioner who doesn't chamber the hand lack the power of one that does if the hands do not land in unison? Is there genuine _structural_ value to cocking the hand? When I think of mechanical structure of the body, I think of vectoral displacement of imparted forces through the muscle groups and the skeletal structure. The more mass your alignment distributes the imparted forces and energy through, the better. I'm not a kinesologist, so I can't speak as a professional on this subject.

As to your question, power sources without cocking of the hand may be arrived at by simple correct anatomical alignment, whether in motion or at rest.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## michaeledward (May 4, 2006)

Great Questions, to which, I am certain, I do not have sufficient answers. As I mentioned in another post today, I worked with Mr. Planas on Long Form 2 this past weekend. He tore it apart and showed me things that I had been doing for four years, without understanding how and why. And, I thought I knew that Form pretty well.

All learning takes place in the students frame of reference. For most of us, when we are learning Short Form 1, our frame of reference for self-defense is quite limited. Everything is new. It may be that the Basics Forms have practitioners place hands on their hips because of that limited frame of reference.

Certainly, much that is in the Basics Forms are more advanced than what is presented to the new student. So, we can revisit Short Form 1 after years of study and learn new things that are in the form, and quite probably in the form by design. Even if we were not aware of that design when we first learned the material.

I am also thinking of something to which I am not yet trained, but have been exposed to .... The first "Stand-Out" move in Long Form 1. The right transitional cat stance with the right thrusting inward block before the Left Inward Block/Right Punch. ... As I understand it, the opposite of that "Stand-Out" move (left transitional cat stance with a left thrusting inward block) exists in Form 6. This means you need, perhaps, a decade of study to first be exposed to this match-up, and then, how much longer time to discover and understand the match-up.

I think the forms are designed, by design. I don't think they are accidental. Mr. Parker started his martial experience in the late 40's/early 50's. I don't know when the forms were created, but even if we assume the mid-60's, that means a minimum of 15 years of experience before assembling the Parker Forms. With that broad experience to draw from, I believe there is an intelligent design in the forms.

As I continue to work with Mr. Planas, I'm sure he'll continue to knock me upside the head with the Forms as he understands them. And that certainly will be good enough for me. 

Peace - Mike


----------



## Carol (May 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, anyhow, I am still a beginner


 
You may be a student, Michael, but certainly not a beginner.

If you are a beginner sir I'm not sure where that leaves me.  Is there a negative metric?


----------



## JamesB (May 4, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I can't speak to the details of BAMing, as I may be aware of something similar but by different terminology.


 
yes I'm sure there's many terms/concepts in use which describe the same kind of thing.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> As for slap checking, we just don't do it. One thing I've brought up in the past on slap checking is that it seems to accentuate power at the end of the motion, but I don't know to what extent it adds power during the path of motion. In other words, if the blocking arm encounters resistance before the "slap" is able to be executed, or if the timing is not a discrete action (say, an inward block used in contact manipulation), is the power in that block diminished?


 
This is from my limited understanding: The slap-check is just one of the mechanisms used whilst executing a 'basic'. In the case of a block meeting resistance prior to the 'slap', then yes the upper body would not be as aligned as it could be. But the important thing is, the block is performed so specifically throughout the entire path of execution that even if the block did meet resistance, it is still strong enough (at any point in it's motion) that it does not matter if the slap get's 'interrupted' for want of a better word. But should the slap eventually 'arrive' then it would immediately lend support to the overall body alignment and integrity. 



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> I am largely ignorant of slap checking, have not been taught it, my teacher intentionally does not endorse it, therefore I genuinely know nothing about it.


 
if you do a search on 'slap-check' on these forums, Dr Chapel has in the past posted several experiments for people to perform which test the efficacy of a simple slap-check. It's fun, try it out!



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> I'd have to see how mechanical structure is enhanced by having the hand at the hip, I just don't understand it.


 
I don't understand it either, but I can feel it / demonstrate it to my students. *But*, having the hand at the hip does not really do much. It is just like having the arm hanging loose by the side. This is quite common in karate I believe and is undoubtably where many people's kenpo took reference from.

Chambering at the side of the *chest* (fist higher up) is totally different. There's a reason why kungfu people chamber this way. It's not done because it's a 'basic' thing for beginners to do - the increase in structural integrity from placing the arm in that position is siginificantly greater than leaving the arm essentially floating.

Try this: stand in a (good) neutral bow and extend your right arm to a palm-heel at shoulder height, fingers facing straight up. Have your left arm 'checking low'. Now have someone push firmly against your extended hand(towards your shoulder) and see how much movement there is in your upper body - can the person collapse your arm or otherwise manipulate you by applying this force? (note if you are very strong then make sure that the person applying the force isn't half your size). What you're doing here is simulating the effect of striking with a palm-heel - but instead of you striking something, you put yourself in position first and have someone apply force in the same direction you would feel resistance when striking.

Now bring your left fist back to the side of the chest, palm up, forearm parallel to the ground. Bring it right back and up to the chest! Do the test again.  There should be a difference in the structural strength in your upper body. For a stronger person the difference will be less noticable but try it on someone with light/medium build...its amazing how much power you can add to their strikes by showing them how to align their shoulders this way.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> Its one thing to talk about the end of a path of action, where the blocking arm and cocking hand arrive at their destination in unison - this is the same sort of instance of simultaneity as slap checking, it seems. But its another thing to talk about power through the path of action. Similar to the above discussion on slap checking, does the practitioner who doesn't chamber the hand lack the power of one that does if the hands do not land in unison?


 
yes, chambering would be more powerful here.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> Is there genuine _structural_ value to cocking the hand? When I think of mechanical structure of the body, I think of vectoral displacement of imparted forces through the muscle groups and the skeletal structure. The more mass your alignment distributes the imparted forces and energy through, the better. I'm not a kinesologist, so I can't speak as a professional on this subject.


 
there certainly is a huge structural difference between cocking/not cocking the arm, other otherwise not supporting the upper body somehow. A slapcheck (applied with the opposing arm) with the arm held across+against the upper body will also result in structural integrity.



			
				bujuts said:
			
		

> As to your question, power sources without cocking of the hand may be arrived at by simple correct anatomical alignment, whether in motion or at rest.


 
In theory yes, but for a beginner (i.e. someone training < 10 years maybe?) the external movements must be practiced as a 'full range of motion'. Someone who is *very* advanced in their execution can align their body (muscles etc) internally without having to go through the motions. But that person must have initially trained the full motion otherwise they would never have gotten to that stage. So in general, correct, specific anatomical postures must be adopted to achieve maximum effectiveness.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> The way I teach+practice this form at the moment is to use a transitional forward-bow between neutral-bows whenever we step back. So the order would be:
> 
> 1. Step back with left foot to a foward bow, chamber right fist (above shoulder height) for a hammering inward block
> 2. Pivot to right-neutral blow with a right inward-block, chambering the left fist at the side of the chest.
> ...


This begs the question; do you ever practice short one for stepping off the line of attack? this would require stability sooner making the transitional bow a bit slow. Just a thought.
Sean


----------



## JamesB (May 5, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> This begs the question; do you ever practice short one for stepping off the line of attack? this would require stability sooner making the transitional bow a bit slow. Just a thought.
> Sean


 
I think you're referring to  'stepping off' as something other than the covers that are built into the form (i.e. when you would change direction to face 3/9/6/12 o'clock)...  in that case no, I personally don't practice this way. I treat the form as a solo practice to develop the body mechanics which would enable me to transition between stances whilst at the same time executing defensive blocks (strikes). I don't attempt to read anything more into the form in terms of motion / alternate striking options, but then that's just the way I approach it at the moment.

My understanding would be that stepping off the line-of-attack would require more specific footwork and I wouldn't like to guess what this might be at this time.. but I would argue that using forward-bows in the form, whilst initially slower to learn and execute, ultimately results in faster transitions and a more effective/stable technique?


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> Nearly James,
> Thinking about the footwork only, from a ready position,
> 1. step back with your left foot into a transitional forward bow.
> 2. turn your right foot to make a forward bow,
> ...


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> yes it's my understanding that the 'back elbow' is just a what-if / motion concept. It could be there, but the form should not be trained that way as the chambering of the fist is designed to support your body-structure and block.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


James, in that form the hand does go to the Hip Index. However if the hand is closed, how can it be a strike?


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I'd suspect that the notion of a "back elbow strike" is modern attempt of sorts to insert application to the cocking of the hand at the hips. We all know that this is a classical motion, and certainly there's nothing wrong with seeing it as a rear elbow, but I'd imagine the form was done in that manner to meet the standards of classical "kata" and not intended as a strike. But its a good way to describe it to a beginner, no doubt.


 
I think you're correct.  Of course, if we look at some translations to other forms/kata out there, the act of pulling the hand back to the hips could signify pulling someones arm while you counter strike with the other hand.



> In our group, we do not cock the hand back in application, consequently we do not do so in training, This includes our forms. We operate from a standard positioning of the arms which I won't go into at this time, but suffice it to say the arm positioning is the same in our forms as it is in application. If one's kenpo does is not taught from a common construct from which all the motions of the arms originate, then I believe the hips are a good frame of reference for the learning student. But its important for us to recognize this disparity between application and training, unless of course, the hand is actually cocked at the hips in a fight.


 
If you don't mind going into some detail, I'd be interested in hearing about the way you position the arms.

Mike


----------



## JamesB (May 5, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> James, in that form the hand does go to the Hip Index. However if the hand is closed, how can it be a strike?


 
ok that's interesting, I definitely didn't imagine that it would be like that. From my simple tests chambering at the chest had quite a difference compared to chambering that the hip (when testing inward+outward extended blocks). I honestly can't see the reason for doing it that way but then there's so many mechanisms/reasons for doing things which I just don't comprehend....do you have a simple explanation for contrasting the circumstances under which you'd choose to chamber at either the hip/chest? i.e. maybe a general action which had just taken place, or was about to happen?

I recall Mr Mills talking about hand open vs closed for striking (in this context) so I'm with you on that..I think! Funny how simple it seems once someone explains it well


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 5, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I think you're referring to 'stepping off' as something other than the covers that are built into the form (i.e. when you would change direction to face 3/9/6/12 o'clock)... in that case no, I personally don't practice this way. I treat the form as a solo practice to develop the body mechanics which would enable me to transition between stances whilst at the same time executing defensive blocks (strikes). I don't attempt to read anything more into the form in terms of motion / alternate striking options, but then that's just the way I approach it at the moment.
> 
> My understanding would be that stepping off the line-of-attack would require more specific footwork and I wouldn't like to guess what this might be at this time.. but I would argue that using forward-bows in the form, whilst initially slower to learn and execute, ultimately results in faster transitions and a more effective/stable technique?


Is not Short one a mass attack preparation form? I don't think it is reading into a form to explore mass attack options on "THE" base form.
Sean


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> ok that's interesting, I definitely didn't imagine that it would be like that. From my simple tests chambering at the chest had quite a difference compared to chambering that the hip (when testing inward+outward extended blocks). I honestly can't see the reason for doing it that way but then there's so many mechanisms/reasons for doing things which I just don't comprehend....do you have a simple explanation for contrasting the circumstances under which you'd choose to chamber at either the hip/chest? i.e. maybe a general action which had just taken place, or was about to happen?
> 
> I recall Mr Mills talking about hand open vs closed for striking (in this context) so I'm with you on that..I think! Funny how simple it seems once someone explains it well


When you execute the form as it was designed (by Mr. Parker) and include all the mechnisms, then you will recognize that the Indexes translate into Intersecting Circles. On one level the Intersecting Circles translate into Double Blocks. They are also the root movement of your basic AOD execution mechanisms, your trapping mechanisms, counter seize mechanism, and seize takedown, etc depending on the size, timing and execution of those Intersecting Circle Mechanisms.


----------



## lenatoi (May 5, 2006)

What does AOD stand for?:idunno:


----------



## Doc (May 5, 2006)

lenatoi said:
			
		

> What does AOD stand for?:idunno:


in SL-4 Kenpo, Anticipated Offense & Defense. They are the bridge between forms, sets, and self defense techniques that may be expressed as exercise drills, and/or expeditious technques within themselves that answer questions not found in curriculum defined default self-defense techniques.


----------



## bujuts (May 6, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> If you don't mind going into some detail, I'd be interested in hearing about the way you position the arms.
> Mike


Rather than trying to explain it, what I did is a search through some posts that have been made on the same subject.



			
				From SBrown said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]The objective of twelve points is to establish a basis of domination of the three dimensions within the parameters of the Outer Rim.  The creation of the twelve points parallels (and was inspired by) efforts in modern physics to discover a unified theory that ties all forces of the universe together. As such, twelve points is not only an origin, but a starting, ending, and transitioning position. You will see in Mr. Pick's techniques motions are in, out, and through the twelve point positions - thus "tying" together all strikes, blocks, etc, within the techniques. This dynamic process is referred to as Variable Expansion, which I think of as twelve points in motion.
> [/FONT]





			
				From Mbuonfiglio said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica] In considering the importance of twelve points it might be thought of in this way. The neutral bow is the king of all stances. We in the UKF consider it to be our primary weapon. We constantly move from the neutral bow to the neutral bow. If the neutral bow is incorrect, deterioration of engagement compounds through transition diminishing power transfer and effectiveness. Therefore it is imperative that the neutral bow be correct in order to provide the mass the correct anatomical alignment to effectively engage in three dimensions. Twelve points then can be considered the neutral bow of the hands. Correctly positioned it defines the outer rim. It places your upper body weapons in correct anatomical alignment as the domination process of both your outer rim and your enemies outer rim unfolds to spinal ring penetration.[/FONT]





			
				From SBrown said:
			
		

> I[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]f from a horse stance you position the arms at bracing angles (i.e. the angle of the inward block) outlining the Outer Rim, step back to a neutral bow, drop the rear elbow down by a fist or two, now you've got four points of consideration in each of the three physical dimensions (the fists and elbows each at distinct locations in the width zone, in the depth zone, and in the heighth zone). 12 Points gets its name simply from this - 4 Points of Consideration/Dimension x 3 Dimensions = 12 Points of Consideration.
> 
> The two-dimensional image of the outer rim is formed by your articulating centers (shoulders and hips), centered at the solar plexus, and completed by two circles passing from the solar plexus through these articulating centers. Refer to http://www.ukfkenpo.com/pg/uni_dia.html. The Outer Rim is completed by expanding this image into the depth zone by your arm's length. Now you have a three dimensional space that you completely dominate through your motions in kenpo. 12 Points, then, is a reference point; in all regards, you dominate this space, all three physical dimensions of the Outer Rim. We perform the techniques from, to, and through a Twelve Point Position. We do not stray beyond the Outer Rim, we do not chamber or cock the hand, and we do not allow the outer rim to be collapsed on us. Play with it, and you'll find there's a wealth of information in it.
> 
> ...


[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]For Reference, look at Mr. Pick in this picture:  http://www.ukfkenpo.com/gallery/seminars/031904/pages/031904-005.htm
Note the orientation of his arms specifically, not that of Mr. Idol and Mr. Higgins (meaning them no disrespect, mind you).  This is where we opate from.  If his right hand were throwing an inward block, you'd have our Delayed Sword (and every spinoff thereof, Attacking Mace, Dance of Death, etc.).  If his right hand were turned to deliver a hammerfist to the neck, you'd have our first strike in Five Swords after the block.  If his right hand were throwing an extended outward block, you'd have our Sword of Destruction.  If his right hand were throwing a downward block, you'd have our Deflecting Hammer.  So on and so on.  Incidentally, we train to keep the hands closed (but not necessarily clenched) unless we specifically need them open to form a particular weapon.

Also, put a knife in the reverse-grip his right hand (or left, for that matter), and you see how our empty-hand kenpo translates directly into the knife, also shown here: http://www.ukfkenpo.com/gallery/seminars/061705/pages/061705-03.htm
Notice that here, Mr. B still has (in context of his own outer rim) four different points in his width zone (two elbows, two hands), four different points in his height zone, and four different points in his depth zone - literally 12 Points.

Finally, to put it in context of this thread, this 12 Points position is how you'll see us working Short Set 1, instead of chambering the hand at the hips.

Hope that helps.

Steven Brown
UKF
[/FONT]


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2006)

Thanks for taking the time to post this!  It answered my questions and the pics. were a big plus too!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## JamesB (May 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Is not Short one a mass attack preparation form? I don't think it is reading into a form to explore mass attack options on "THE" base form.
> Sean


 
I can only speak for myself, but I don't view the forms this way - however this is probably a reflection on where I am in my learning so far. 
I simply see short#1 (and long#1) a tools to develop correct body mechanics. I recognise that many people may view these forms differently and they're entitled to interpret them any way they wish - after all that is one of the core principles behind AK is it not? Personally though I prefer to 'keep it simple' as there seems to be a never-ending complexity to even this (apparently) simple form (see Doc's comments in this thread) and moving beyond this before I've even started to _really_ learn short#1 is unwarranted imho.


----------



## JamesB (May 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> When you execute the form as it was designed (by Mr. Parker) and include all the mechnisms, then you will recognize that the Indexes translate into Intersecting Circles. On one level the Intersecting Circles translate into Double Blocks. They are also the root movement of your basic AOD execution mechanisms, your trapping mechanisms, counter seize mechanism, and seize takedown, etc depending on the size, timing and execution of those Intersecting Circle Mechanisms.


 
Well I can kind of put this into context enough to appreciate what you're saying...but I think I better learn short#1 before attempting to go any further


----------



## Doc (May 7, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Well I can kind of put this into context enough to appreciate what you're saying...but I think I better learn short#1 before attempting to go any further


Your assessment regarding body mechanics is correct. It is the first form and is designed to introduce and reinforce basics and teach skills that have significate applications as you move through the curriculum. It includes the fundamentals of stances, (horse, transitional forward bow, rear bow,  neutral bow, head and foot Indexing), defensive footwork, (PAM, step through, Indexing, outside angle and reverse cover) defensive blocking (double block), seize extrication, counterseize takedowns, defensive breaking, BAM,s, AOD mechanisms (offensive muscle reassignment, never cavity access, offensive weapon disconnect) and defensive breathing as a start. Everyone of these mechanisms is used by the time you finish the 102 (orange) course.

Good work James.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> I can only speak for myself, but I don't view the forms this way - however this is probably a reflection on where I am in my learning so far.
> I simply see short#1 (and long#1) a tools to develop correct body mechanics. I recognise that many people may view these forms differently and they're entitled to interpret them any way they wish - after all that is one of the core principles behind AK is it not? Personally though I prefer to 'keep it simple' as there seems to be a never-ending complexity to even this (apparently) simple form (see Doc's comments in this thread) and moving beyond this before I've even started to _really_ learn short#1 is unwarranted imho.


Now I feel like a hardstylist defending an ancient form and its true meaning, but I contend that adding transitional bows may look cool but is too slow for the a mass attack situation. If seperating combat affectiveness from a form makes you a more effective martial artist then I guess you know what your doing.
Sean


----------



## Doc (May 8, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Now I feel like a hardstylist defending an ancient form and its true meaning, but I contend that adding transitional bows may look cool but is too slow for the a mass attack situation. If seperating combat affectiveness from a form makes you a more effective martial artist then I guess you know what your doing.
> Sean


So you're saying that the first form you learn should teach you how to defend against a mass attack, but it doesn't contain any offensive movements. I guess that's one perspective, however I thought it was supposed to teach you basic footwork and blocking applications, as the very first form with 'mass attack' being far from what you should be doing or thinking about.


----------



## Sam (May 8, 2006)

I am confused on the main post. Repeat on opposite side? You DID both sides...?


----------



## MJS (May 8, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> I am confused on the main post. Repeat on opposite side? You DID both sides...?


 
Repeat on opposite side= The mirror image of the first way you did the form.  The 2nd side would start with stepping back with your right foot and delivering a left inward block.  

Mike


----------



## Sam (May 9, 2006)

mjs said:
			
		

> 1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.
> 2. Drop your right foot back to 6 :00, into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward block and a right back elbow strike.



Isn't that doing both sides?

Also, what are all these elbow strikes? this is CRAZY-different from the version I was taught.


----------



## Blindside (May 9, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> Isn't that doing both sides?
> 
> Also, what are all these elbow strikes? this is CRAZY-different from the version I was taught.


 
Sam, think of every time you chamber your hand at your waist, you are actually doing an elbow strike to the rear.  Same thing, different perspective.

Also some AK schools will do a form on both sides, so you would start Short 1 stepping back with the left foot, after completing the form they would do the opposite, by performing the form again by stepping back with the right on the initial motion.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> Isn't that doing both sides?


 
No. 

There are two inward blocks at the beginning of the form, but that does not equate do "doing both sides". We can see this if we look at the position of the blocking hand just before the block.

In step 1, you are in a medatative position with your left hand over your right fist. Your right hand (the blocking hand) is *up*. When we actually begin to move in the form, the right hand should move from that 'point of origin' position directly to the inward block position. This is called a "right, hammering, inward block". 'Hammering' is the method of execution.

In step 2, your left hand (the blocking hand) is *down*, cocked at your hip. (correct?) As we make our second move, the left hand moves from its 'point of origin' from the left hip, up to the left inward block position. This is called a "left, thrusting, inward block". 'Thrusting is the method of execution.

To properly "do both sides", you would need to do both a: 'left, hammering, inward block' and a 'right, thrusting, inward block'.

Does that make sense? Can you think of any other actions in the form that would be different *if *you were to start by Stepping back with your right foot?



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> Also, what are all these elbow strikes? this is CRAZY-different from the version I was taught.


 
Maybe not ... sometimes in American Kenpo we talk of dual action, or action within action. Often, when we begin to learn some of the moves in the form, our teachers deliberately choose not to point out some information, so that we do not become 'overloaded'. 

There is always time available to revisit earlier information, and better define what is there, better explain what is there.


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> Isn't that doing both sides?
> 
> Also, what are all these elbow strikes? this is CRAZY-different from the version I was taught.


 
*



			Start from a meditating horse stance facing 12 :00.
		
Click to expand...

*


> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. Drop your left foot back to 6 :00, into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a right inward block and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Drop your right foot back to 6 :00, into a left neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Turn to face your next imaginary opponent at 9 :00. Step with your right foot to 3 :00, into a left neutral bow, while simultaneously delivering a right inward block followed by left outward block and a right back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Drop your left foot back to 3 :00 into a right neutral bow while simultaneously delivering a left inward right outward block combination and a left back elbow strike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> ...


*[/SIZE][/FONT]*

The 'other' side, is the mirror image of the first.  Think about it like this.  You and I are facing each other.  I begin the form the way it is written above, stepping back with my left leg first.  You mirror me, by doing the complete opposite, with you stepping back with your right.  Now, doing this form solo, on both sides, it would be the exactly the same as if you were standing in front of me.  

You mention that this version is different from yours.  How do you perform this form?  Is it basically the same with the exception of the elbows?  Also keep in mind that there are many different instructors out there.  We could have 5 people do the same technique, and there is a good chance there may be a slight variation in all 5.  Take a look back at some of the technique discussions that I've started.  You should see the variety of ways people do the techniques.


Mike


----------



## Sam (May 9, 2006)

Well, from your prospective then, we only do 1/2 the kata. I've never heard of a hammering inward block. 

A very basic description of the way we do it is:

Step back left hardbow, right inward block
step back right hardbow, left inward block
Step right to 3 o clock hardbow left outward block
step back left hardbow, right outward block
adjust right foot up as you pivot hardbow left upward block
step left foot back hardbow right upward block
adjust left foot forward square horse stance coverall block right downward block
Bring right foot behind you til your standing in the exact same spot only facing the other wall, coverall block left downward block
step left foot to 9 o clock sq horse stance, bow out

as you can see, we only do it off of one side. The version originally posted would be very repetitive... long 1 even more so if done in the same fashion.


----------



## Blindside (May 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No.
> There are two inward blocks at the beginning of the form, but that does not equate do "doing both sides". We can see this if we look at the position of the blocking hand just before the block.
> 
> In step 1, you are in a medatative position with your left hand over your right fist. Your right hand (the blocking hand) is *up*. When we actually begin to move in the form, the right hand should move from that 'point of origin' position directly to the inward block position. This is called a "right, hammering, inward block". 'Hammering' is the method of execution.
> ...


 
But don't you pick up a "left, hammering, inward block" in other places in the form?

From my perspective, I don't really see the point in doing all forms on their opposite side.  It may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but I don't think I'm losing motion that isn't covered elsewhere.  I'd rather spend my limited training time on other aspects of kenpo.  

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> But don't you pick up a "left, hammering, inward block" in other places in the form?
> 
> From my perspective, I don't really see the point in doing all forms on their opposite side. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but I don't think I'm losing motion that isn't covered elsewhere. I'd rather spend my limited training time on other aspects of kenpo.


 
I'll answer a question with a question .... Is there a difference in executing a 'left, hammering, inward block' as a minor move, rather than a major move? 

The only form we execute on both sides, as a matter of regular training, is Short Form 1. As a thought exercise, we will occassionally perform Long 1 on the other side (where is the extra move?).



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> Well, from your prospective then, we only do 1/2 the kata. I've never heard of a hammering inward block.
> 
> A very basic description of the way we do it is:
> 
> ...


 
Sam, again, No. From my perspective, Short Form 1 teaches (at its most basic), eight *front hand blocks while retreating*: Inward, Outward, Upward, Downward. But, as we look at the form beyond its most basic application, we can begin to see other pieces of information that could prove to be useful.

Many schools do not perform the 'Other Side' of this form, because the 'Other Side' of this form is hidden within the ending of Long Form 1. (Hidden in plain sight actually).


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 9, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> So you're saying that the first form you learn should teach you how to defend against a mass attack, but it doesn't contain any offensive movements. I guess that's one perspective, however I thought it was supposed to teach you basic footwork and blocking applications, as the very first form with 'mass attack' being far from what you should be doing or thinking about.


So a mass attack should the furthest thing from our minds in short one? got it. I see plenty of offensive application myself. What is the fundamental difference between offensive motion and defensive motion?
Sean


----------



## Sam (May 9, 2006)

Michael Edward: Wait, what are you saying no to? You didn't quote a question... you quoted a statement.

No, my statement is wrong?


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

> from your prospective then, we only do 1/2 the kata.


 
No, from my perspective, You are doing the complete Short Form 1. 

I do note, that some schools (including mine) do the complete Short Form 1 on the other side as well.



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> I've never heard of a hammering inward block.


 
I am confident that you are actually executing a 'hammering' inward block, even if you are unfamiliar with the term. I don't think I heard the term until I was a green belt. 

If you start Short Form 1 from a meditative position, the first move is a right hammering inward block. Your right hand makes a motion similar to pounding a nail with a hammer.

If you start Short Form 1 from a training horse stance, the first move *is not* a hammering inward block (and you are starting the form from a non-traditional starting point).


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No, from my perspective, You are doing the complete Short Form 1.
> 
> I do note, that some schools (including mine) do the complete Short Form 1 on the other side as well.
> 
> ...


What is the fifference between hammer and thrust?
Sean


----------



## HKphooey (May 9, 2006)

Remember we are teaching this to beginners...  I think 20 students just walked out the door.  We can debate this form until be a blue in the face.  Heck I have gotten lots of great ideas from this thread for my own training and for advanced belts.  But I do not think I would go into so much detail when teaching a beginner.  

Do most of you teach a white belt this much detail or is this just for your uppere belts?  Just curious.

Once again... I have gotten some great viewpoints from the post.


----------



## michaeledward (May 9, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What is the fifference between hammer and thrust?
> Sean


 

Simple answer = "Point of origin".

Hand up = Hammering Inward Block
Hand down = Thrusting Inward Block
 

More complex answer (adding references)

You see a similar reference at the end of Long Form 1 & Long Form 2; when the palm up block, palm down block, and push downs are added to the series. 

Hand down = Palm Down Block
Hand up = Palm Up Block

P.S. HKPhooey - I do not train students (still a student myself), but with a new student, they learn the series of eight *front hand blocks while retreating*; Inward Outward Upward Downward. Much of the rest comes later.


----------



## Michael Billings (May 10, 2006)

In either case you are citing Methods of Execution, as noted in Infinite Insights.  I do both sides of the form, and insert the checks also Sam.

To make it easier, you just do not cock the Inward Block.  It comes from Point of Origin each time.  The first time using a neutral bow, but the (maybe) more familiar and stronger HAMMERING Method of Execution.  

The next one you step back into a twist stance, which affords more power from the rotation available.  So we can execute, what for the beginner may be a "weaker" block, the THRUSTING Method of Execution with the Inward Block.

It does not get more complicated, just more sophisticated as your level of understanding increases.  Keep asking the questions and file them away for future reference as you progress.

Respectfully,
-Michael


----------



## Carol (May 10, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> Remember we are teaching this to beginners... I think 20 students just walked out the door. We can debate this form until be a blue in the face. Heck I have gotten lots of great ideas from this thread for my own training and for advanced belts. But I do not think I would go into so much detail when teaching a beginner.


 
Ahhhh you are touching on something that rubs me a little raw, HKPhooey.

Beginners are not necessarily stupid people.  They may not be well versed in MA, but that does not mean they do not have the capacity to learn.   They may not know the language or the terminology the same way an upper belt does, but that does not meant that the student is not capable of absorbing the amount of detail when taught properly.   

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to learning, and one certainly has to take in to account the demographics of your actual students.    

But...I think I speak for more than one New England beginner when I say that there are many of us with a solid education and demanding occupations.  We have brain power.   We may not know what an axe kick is when we first walk through the door of your studio, but we use our brains for a living, and we have a rigorous capacity to learn.  Everyone's mileage may vary, but I betcha teaching can be more rewarding for the instructor as well as the student when that potential is tapped in to...instead of minimized. :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (May 10, 2006)

Not to jump to someone else's defense, but it is not a matter of brains or intelligence, or the combination of using both.  It is more a matter of volume of material, learning theory has something called interference, which we see a lot in beginning students, and it is always a challenge to gauge the level of the class and teach just a little more than they can absorb.  

They can see how to get there, but if I executed my techniques or forms at speed, I get the most amazing "huh" looks from my students, including Brown Belts.  They see it, but cannot figure out how to get there.  There are many levels of learning the same thing, and I think it is not a matter of withholding anything.  My biggest criticism of myself is I let my own enthusiasm overwhelm my students with the subtlies of any given technique, when maybe I should teach a base which you can test with, then add to it as they can.  But always keep the material available for those who are ready to add another level of sophistication to their movement, or application of any given technique or form.

Does this make any sense at all?  It definitly applies to Short Form #1 as I teach it to kids or beginners, and what I expect of my more advance belts.  They do essentially the same thing  ....   the difference  is in how they do it.

-Michael


----------



## HKphooey (May 11, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Ahhhh you are touching on something that rubs me a little raw, HKPhooey.
> 
> Beginners are not necessarily stupid people. They may not be well versed in MA, but that does not mean they do not have the capacity to learn. They may not know the language or the terminology the same way an upper belt does, but that does not meant that the student is not capable of absorbing the amount of detail when taught properly.
> 
> ...


 
Not intended to be a blanket statement.  I tailor my instruction to the student.  If I think the studnet can absord more material and information, I will teach it.  

In reading many of your posts, I would say you are someone that is eager to learn and quickly understand many of the concepts.  

Sorry if my comments were misinterpruted.

Mr. Billings, thank you for you post.


----------



## Monadnock (May 11, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What is the fifference between hammer and thrust?
> Sean


 
To piggyback on MichaelEdward's answer a bit, Hammering generally travels downward, or a "thrust" in the downward direction.

It also uses the elbow in such a way as to mimic "hammering."

Not that you can't hammer horizontally or upward in the construction business, but as far as Parker Kenpo, I think the term was more limited to downward strikes/blocks in that fashion.


----------



## Kenpodoc (May 11, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Ahhhh you are touching on something that rubs me a little raw, HKPhooey.
> 
> Beginners are not necessarily stupid people. They may not be well versed in MA, but that does not mean they do not have the capacity to learn. They may not know the language or the terminology the same way an upper belt does, but that does not meant that the student is not capable of absorbing the amount of detail when taught properly.
> 
> ...


Carol, I don't think it's a matter of brain power.  Beginners can be overloaded with too much information. Learn the basics before you add the fancy frills. As a personal example I find that after I learn a form I try to tweak the details and inevitably I get lost again.  It's one of the things I love about Kenpo, every time I go back through the system there is more to learn, and I can see things I didn't understand the first time through.

Jeff


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 11, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> To piggyback on MichaelEdward's answer a bit, Hammering generally travels downward, or a "thrust" in the downward direction.
> 
> It also uses the elbow in such a way as to mimic "hammering."
> 
> Not that you can't hammer horizontally or upward in the construction business, but as far as Parker Kenpo, I think the term was more limited to downward strikes/blocks in that fashion.


What do points of reference have to do with hammer and thrust?


----------



## Monadnock (May 16, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What do points of reference have to do with hammer and thrust?


 
Everything and nothing I guess... :idunno:


----------



## Doc (May 16, 2006)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Not to jump to someone else's defense, but it is not a matter of brains or intelligence, or the combination of using both.  It is more a matter of volume of material, learning theory has something called interference, which we see a lot in beginning students, and it is always a challenge to gauge the level of the class and teach just a little more than they can absorb.
> 
> They can see how to get there, but if I executed my techniques or forms at speed, I get the most amazing "huh" looks from my students, including Brown Belts.  They see it, but cannot figure out how to get there.  There are many levels of learning the same thing, and I think it is not a matter of withholding anything.  My biggest criticism of myself is I let my own enthusiasm overwhelm my students with the subtlies of any given technique, when maybe I should teach a base which you can test with, then add to it as they can.  But always keep the material available for those who are ready to add another level of sophistication to their movement, or application of any given technique or form.
> 
> ...


Sir, as always, you make all the sense in the world to me.


----------

