# Long Form #1



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 10, 2004)

I've never had anyone or anybody answer this question.  But at the same time I have never asked it...LOL.

In Short Form #1 we always step away from the unknown when we cover step to a new block (minor/major). In Long Form #1 on the first downward block we step into the so called attack ( the known ), because prior to the attack we have 180 degree vision from facing 3:00. 6:00 is then known... Here is where I see a possible inconsistency. Why don't we step in on the first outward vertical block/punch combination toward 9:00? Wouldn't this angle be considered know?

Does anyone have an opinion?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2004)

They're different forms, dude. They teach different things.


----------



## Old Guy (Apr 10, 2004)

So you will end up in the same spot that you started out in.

OG


----------



## Doc (Apr 11, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> I've never had anyone or anybody answer this question.  But at the same time I have never asked it...LOL.
> 
> In Short Form #1 we always step away from the unknown when we cover step to a new block (minor/major). In Long Form #1 on the first downward block we step into the so called attack ( the known ), because prior to the attack we have 180 degree vision from facing 3:00. 6:00 is then known... Here is where I see a possible inconsistency. Why don't we step in on the first outward vertical block/punch combination toward 9:00? Wouldn't this angle be considered know?
> 
> Does anyone have an opinion?


Yes I guess you could say I have an opinion from the perspective that I teach sir.

Simply Short Form One is a purely defensive form/lesson, therefore stepping in with a block with no offensive counter would be pointless. Ultimately, the lesson continues in Long Form One which now teaches you to step into and counter after the defensive action. However stepping into a lower line attack, (probably a kick) where the action is deflected to the outside of our leg and centerline is quite different in practical terms from stepping into a punch thrown at the head at that level. That lesson continues in Short Form Two which among other things, than teaches you to step toward your attacker utilizing defensive and offensive actions simultaeously. There is no inconsistency, only a matter of interpretation. There are many lessons to be learned, and some of them are not quite so obvious sir.


----------



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 11, 2004)

There are some good points here.  Thank-You.





			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Yes I guess you could say I have an opinion from the perspective that I teach sir.
> 
> Simply Short Form One is a purely defensive form/lesson, therefore stepping in with a block with no offensive counter would be pointless. Ultimately, the lesson continues in Long Form One which now teaches you to step into and counter after the defensive action. However stepping into a lower line attack, (probably a kick) where the action is deflected to the outside of our leg and centerline is quite different in practical terms from stepping into a punch thrown at the head at that level. That lesson continues in Short Form Two which among other things, than teaches you to step toward your attacker utilizing defensive and offensive actions simultaeously. There is no inconsistency, only a matter of interpretation. There are many lessons to be learned, and some of them are not quite so obvious sir.


----------



## BlackPhoenix (Apr 11, 2004)

Thank You Very Much Sir For Your Insite.  Much Appreciated.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Yes I guess you could say I have an opinion from the perspective that I teach sir.
> 
> Simply Short Form One is a purely defensive form/lesson, therefore stepping in with a block with no offensive counter would be pointless. Ultimately, the lesson continues in Long Form One which now teaches you to step into and counter after the defensive action. However stepping into a lower line attack, (probably a kick) where the action is deflected to the outside of our leg and centerline is quite different in practical terms from stepping into a punch thrown at the head at that level. That lesson continues in Short Form Two which among other things, than teaches you to step toward your attacker utilizing defensive and offensive actions simultaeously. There is no inconsistency, only a matter of interpretation. There are many lessons to be learned, and some of them are not quite so obvious sir.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Apr 11, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Simply Short Form One is a purely defensive form/lesson, therefore stepping in with a block with no offensive counter would be pointless.


 
That is until you do it in Reverse, it then becomes defensive, as well as moving into the contact manipulation phase of the form.

Dark Lord


----------



## Rainman (Apr 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> That is until you do it in Reverse, it then becomes defensive, as well as moving into the contact manipulation phase of the form.
> 
> Dark Lord



You don't have to reverse it skippy- it already is in contact manipulation form just the way long 1 is done in book 5... So much for me being an underbelt to you...  If you decide to give advice- know what you are talking about first.


----------



## Doc (Apr 11, 2004)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> That is until you do it in Reverse, it then becomes defensive, as well as moving into the contact manipulation phase of the form.
> 
> Dark Lord



Well that may be your interpretation of another aspect of the form at another level (one I disagree with), but the orignal question was about specific basic aspects of the forms. I can take any aspect of any part of kenpo and turn it into another level, *if* that is the point of the discussion.

Now that you've brought it up, what is your definition of contact manipulation? Another one of the misunderstood and mis-appled aspects of some interpretations of kenpo.


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 12, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Well that may be your interpretation of another aspect of the form at another level (one I disagree with), but the orignal question was about specific basic aspects of the forms. .


This would be the problem with this media. 


			
				Doc said:
			
		

> I can take any aspect of any part of kenpo and turn it into another level, *if* that is the point of the discussion.


A lot of people can, and do. Thus the endless !@#$ heap of interpretations.


			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Now that you've brought it up, what is your definition of contact manipulation? Another one of the misunderstood and mis-appled aspects of some interpretations of kenpo.


If I tell you I have an apple you have only my word, until you see that I in fact have an orange you know no different. "contact manipulation" is a very broad concept involving many other concepts of the Kenpo system, as you very well know. Some people (to maintain) the "Parker" coined terms use this term, all though I must agree it is often mis-used and mis-understood it falls with in the Parker terms. It is universal and easy to apply to many things, I am curious as to why you are so set against the use of this particular term, other than the fact that everyone seems to use it  far to frequently now days for ummm maybe a filler or busy word.... LOL just kidding inside joke. It's use in "Rainmans" posting was not however. But your students know what Sub4 is and the majority of the rest of the Kenpo world see it as "contact manipulation" or "control manipulation". You and they (your students) know different. :asian:  :asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 12, 2004)

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> This would be the problem with this media.
> 
> A lot of people can, and do. Thus the endless !@#$ heap of interpretations.
> 
> If I tell you I have an apple you have only my word, until you see that I in fact have an orange you know no different. "contact manipulation" is a very broad concept involving many other concepts of the Kenpo system, as you very well know. Some people (to maintain) the "Parker" coined terms use this term, all though I must agree it is often mis-used and mis-understood it falls with in the Parker terms. It is universal and easy to apply to many things, I am curious as to why you are so set against the use of this particular term, other than the fact that everyone seems to use it  far to frequently now days for ummm maybe a filler or busy word.... LOL just kidding inside joke. It's use in "Rainmans" posting was not however. But your students know what Sub4 is and the majority of the rest of the Kenpo world see it as "contact manipulation" or "control manipulation". You and they (your students) know different. :asian:  :asian:



That's not fair because I know you know the difference, but the "Dark Lord" brought it up and I wanted to see what he had to say. The term, as you say, is used rather loosely and he injected it into the discussion instead of elaborating on point. Clearly most students of Ed Parker's commercial Kenpo know that "Contact Manipulation" is the fourth and last distance of four in combat described and defined by Parker in his Encyclopedia. But for Dark Lord, and others, (not you Todd) define it so I know we're on the same page please for further discussion, (if interested).


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 12, 2004)

BlackPhoenix said:
			
		

> I've never had anyone or anybody answer this question.  But at the same time I have never asked it...LOL.
> 
> In Short Form #1 we always step away from the unknown when we cover step to a new block (minor/major). In Long Form #1 on the first downward block we step into the so called attack ( the known ), because prior to the attack we have 180 degree vision from facing 3:00. 6:00 is then known... Here is where I see a possible inconsistency. Why don't we step in on the first outward vertical block/punch combination toward 9:00? Wouldn't this angle be considered know?
> 
> Does anyone have an opinion?



It is a preview move of ideas to come in later forms. Also, if/once you go through all the forms, you will have an inventory of all the instances of "L-stepping" into a certain direction, with what blocks/strikes etc. There are no "extra" moves in the Forms. Everything has a match. So even if it looks like the "lone L-step" it's not 

Where you from anyways? I like your line of questioning. And welcome to the boards.


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 12, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> That's not fair because I know you know the difference, but the "Dark Lord" brought it up and I wanted to see what he had to say. The term, as you say, is used rather loosely and he injected it into the discussion instead of elaborating on point. Clearly most students of Ed Parker's commercial Kenpo know that "Contact Manipulation" is the fourth and last distance of four in combat described and defined by Parker in his Encyclopedia. But for Dark Lord, and others, (not you Todd) define it so I know we're on the same page please for further discussion, (if interested).


Sorry Doc! just trying to be a little bit ummmmm. Well never mind! Sorry! Have fun with Rainman when you guys get together. And when I come to Cali I will have to call so you and I can get together.....  :asian:


----------



## Doc (Apr 12, 2004)

sumdumguy said:
			
		

> Sorry Doc! just trying to be a little bit ummmmm. Well never mind! Sorry! Have fun with Rainman when you guys get together. And when I come to Cali I will have to call so you and I can get together.....  :asian:


DONE. That will be cool, and say Hey! to A.C. for me. Another great little know Kenpo Teacher.


----------



## 8253 (Apr 13, 2004)

I believe that they are like that so you dont get locked into one set of movements each time that you use your art.  These are meant to show variations of what could be done differently and also to be built upon further.


----------



## Doc (Apr 13, 2004)

Oh well, I should have discussed it with Todd.


----------



## marshallbd (Apr 13, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Oh well, I should have discussed it with Todd.


Discuss it here....I, as a new Kenpoist, would love to read the knowledge you have to pass on. :asian:


----------



## sumdumguy (Apr 13, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Oh well, I should have discussed it with Todd.


Yea Yea me too! Discuss what? Did I miss something..... 
 :asian:


----------



## marshallbd (Apr 14, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Oh well, I should have discussed it with Todd.


Doc?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 15, 2004)

Doc, like Elvis, has left the building.


----------



## Doc (Apr 15, 2004)

The "Dark Kenpo Lord" threw out some out of contex information into the mix and has yet to answer my inquiry, however the Q&A has been moved to the Ed Parker kenpo Forum. Subject: Contact versus Control manipulation. How do you see it? Film at eleven.


----------



## marshallbd (Apr 15, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> The "Dark Kenpo Lord" threw out some out of contex information into the mix and has yet to answer my inquiry, however the Q&A has been moved to the Ed Parker kenpo Forum. Subject: Contact versus Control manipulation. How do you see it? Film at eleven.


Thanks!, on my way... :asian:


----------



## hector (May 10, 2004)

Hi:
  The basic Forms of Kenpo are designed based on you line them Major and Minor. In the Long 1 we move the right foot in the downward block, simply to conserve the Major line (12:00 - 6:00), when they are carried out the 3 blocks. If you move the left foot, you would have parallel Major 2 lines and you would lose the original center in the form.  There is not inconsistency, but simple logic.

Hector


----------

