# Techniques on both sides?



## Hefeweizen

Does anyone out there practice techniques on both sides?  For instance, Five Swords is intended for a right hand punch, but you could learn it for the left side as well.  I'm only a yellow belt and I've started learning my favorites on both sides, but I'm curious if others practice some or all of them from both sides.

Thanks
Aaron


----------



## Arithon

I can't imagine why you wouldn't practice all techniques on both sides.  Practising the other side also gives you a different perspective on the technique which can be useful.


----------



## Kenpomachine

Even if you don't practice them on both sides at the beginning, you'll have to do in the forms later.


----------



## yilisifu

I imagine that it was intended to be practiced on both sides.


----------



## Les

In our school we practice techniques on both sides.

It is a good way of looking at the 'opposite' portion of the principles of Opposite and Reverse Motion.

Les

P.S.
We also have a fun way of working the 'reverse' portion too.


----------



## jfarnsworth

I believe it's a good way to balance yourself practicing on both sides.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> *I believe it's a good way to balance yourself practicing on both sides. *



The Kenpo system I learn I practice the way it is designed, right side dominant.    If you'd like to waste your time doing it on the left, feel free.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Seig

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *The Kenpo system I learn I practice the way it is designed, right side dominant.    If you'd like to waste your time doing it on the left, feel free.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *


And in most instances, Mr. O'Brient isn't this foolish.  Working your techniques is never a waste of time, wether it be left side, right side or backwards.  It all makes you a better Kenpoist.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *And in most instances, Mr. O'Brient isn't this foolish.  Working your techniques is never a waste of time, wether it be left side, right side or backwards.  It all makes you a better Kenpoist. *



I don't consider it foolish not to practice on the left side but practical.    I don't care how much you train on the left, your brain will respond in the primal mode under stress (dominant side) besides the fact that there is already a left side of techniques built into the system if you dig a bit, just another Kenpo secret that most don't discover.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde T. O'BRIANT


----------



## Seig

Sorry, I spelled your name wrong.  But, Mr. Obriant, what about the person who is naturally left handed, such as myself?  Yes, I learn all the techniques right handed as the system is laid out, but my natural tendency is to use my left.  I also have quite a few left handed students.  Yes, I realize that there are left handed techniques built into the sytem, they are not however as prevelant as the right side techs.


----------



## Jill666

We learn the techniques with the right side dominant, yes, but I make a point of using both sides.

One, sometimes (not often) I'm actually more comfortable executing from the left.

Two, it helps you develop strength and speed from your "dumb" side, making you a more effective Kenpoist.

Three, it forces you to think about why the move works, and you become less complacent. You learn the principle behind the technique so you can develop it fully. Then you can better adapt when an opponent does not react in just the way you trained for. If you know the idea behind the technique, you'll know instantly if you can adapt to apply it effectively, or if you need to counter with something else.
I know if you learn and drill & drill until it becomes fully developed from one side you can adapt in this manner also, I'm just saying this helps me think it through more.

Hope that's clearly expressed.


----------



## Elfan

I practice everything on both sides.


----------



## Les

The IKKA Purple Belt Journal lists the following in the prerequisites for Purple Belt.

"Practice your techniques on both sides to equally develop your co-ordination".

It seems logical to me to practice on both sides, and it will figure in the forms, so why not introduce it early on?

Les


----------



## FLY

In our dojo, up to the fourth tech in green is taught/practiced on only the right side.  Everything after that is done on both sides. 
Once/if a person reaches shodan, then everything is done on both sides right from the beginning of yellow before they move on.

FLY.
:asian:


----------



## Robbo

I think that this one comes down to personal preferance. If you want to practise both sides to make yourself a more effective kenpoist....great. If you want to practise the oppoisite side because you are left-handed....great. If you want to spend all your time practising the techniques as they are taught and use the time to see how effective they are against the opposite side attacking.....great.

As soon as you make it a requirement, that's when I don't agree with it. To walk through them to get a feel for the other side is one thing, but to become as proficient as your dominant side on your weak side is not something I would prefer to do. 

Rob


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by Robbo _
> *As soon as you make it a requirement, that's when I don't agree with it. To walk through them to get a feel for the other side is one thing, but to become as proficient as your dominant side on your weak side is not something I would prefer to do.
> 
> Rob *



Rob,

It was Mr Parkers requirement.

Are we going to say 'Well, if you want to walk the forms and sets through thats up to you, but to become proficient with the basics should be optional'?

Les


----------



## Robbo

> It was Mr Parkers requirement.



Unfortunatly I don't study EPAK, I'd like to someday. But I don't right now so I am not subject to his requirements.

Rob


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by Robbo _
> *Unfortunatly I don't study EPAK, I'd like to someday. But I don't right now so I am not subject to his requirements.
> 
> Rob *



Rob,

That a fair point.

I'll take my blinkers off  

Les


----------



## Seig

This is one of those "Discussions" where both parties (sides) have valid arguments.  I think this is one of those things we all will have to agree to disagree on.


----------



## rmcrobertson

"It was Mr. Parker's requirement?"

Les, could you show me where this requirement was set down?

I've got a tape of a 1985 black belt test in West LA, with Mr. Parker and Larry Tatum presiding. Bob Lyles, Dian Tanaka, Jeff Speakman, Scott Higgins, Brian Hawkins, Barbara Hale, etc., etc., are all on that test--and nobody does even one technique on both sides, except in a form.

My understanding--surprise, surprise--is that Clyde's right. The basic arguments are: a) the dominant side's the right, for biological aand cultural reasons (as well as, I suspect, vaguer and perhaps even sexist reasons); b) very few will use the left; c) the "right-sided techs" work perfectly well against left-sided attacks; d) the forms will gradually bring the two sides into something resembling balance.

But I also agree that this is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks.


----------



## Brother John

I see where you guys are coming from, but I still believe it's a good idea to learn to perform your techniques on both sides. 

I think you are right Clyde, about not putting TOO much time into training the off side and that you will respond with your dominant side first. No doubt. BUT: the principles w/in the techniques (which I regard as MORE important than the technical mechanics of the techs themselves) can be trained and ingrained into either/andor/both sides of your body. Besides just working on coordination (which it's very good for) I believe it increases your vocabulary.

Hope I get to see you again some day Clyde. Really enjoyed meeting you in Vegas that one time!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Les

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *"It was Mr. Parker's requirement?"
> 
> Les, could you show me where this requirement was set down?
> *



I took this information from the IKKA Purple Belt Journal.

On Page 2, the Introduction, in Section 2, sub headed COORDINATION, it says "You must strive to be equally coordinated on both sides of your self-defense techniques, freestyle techniques, and your forms".

On Page 4, Prerequisites, number 20 states, "Practice your techniques on both sides to equally develop your coordination".

I know there are several versions of the IKKA Journals, my copy is copyrighted 1987 Ed Parker Sr.

Les


----------



## rmcrobertson

Thanks, Les.


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Les _
> *...Les *



Les, thanks for taking the time to look this information up.


----------



## Les

In the IKKA's Orange Belt Journal, on page 2, the Introduction, paragraph three states;

"perfect your best side first, then proceed to practice your techniques on your weaker side. There are a number of benefits to this; (1) it forces you to take the time to analyze your stronger side, which in turn, (2) makes you become more aware of the points you may have overlooked , (3) increases the strength of your weak side, (4) expands your vocabulary of motion by increasing your knowledge of variables, and (5) leads to acquiring more ambidextrous qualities".

In the Prerequisites, on page 3, number 16 states, "Know your techniques, and begin practicing your Yellow and Orange techniques on both sides.

Now I'll get off my :soapbox: 

Les


----------



## rmcrobertson

OK, OK, got it. But I have a couple questions: don't the manuals you cite say, "after you perfect," and do they ever tell you when/how you'll do this? Can't they be read as saying, "ideally, you'll eventually bring both sides into balance...but for right now, you should work on what works."

A second, more serious question is this: is there any record of Mr. Parker aactually doing, say, Five Swords on both sides and teaching it that way? If so, why doesn't the '85 tape I've got show any evidence that Lyles, Tanaka, Higgins, Hawkins, Hale et al. regularly run their techs on both sides? Why ain't it on the test?

Let me also be clear about my presuppositions. I suspect that a lot of this particular discussion amounts to a pursuit of unnecessary technology--more exactly still, to a pursuit of technobabble at the expense of self-defense. No, I certainly don't have anybody particular in mind--absolutely not Les, who's been in martial arts about twice as long as I have.

But what I notice, every time this subject comes up, it that it tends to be tied to a few things that make me wonder:

a) in MY school, we run techs on both sides, unlike the lesser schools;
b) a prematurity of development; to my mind, shoving beginners into ideas and moves that aare in general way in advance of where they are in their training;
c) black belt boredom--I'm tired of teaching the same old same old, so let's jazz things up even if it's not the way I got to where I am;
d) a downgrading of the forms, which (if worked hard) tend to bring the body into balance anyway;
e) a degree of refusal to explore what a right-sided tech will do against left-sided attacks;
f) an unnecessary inventiveness that overlooks both the checking system and the way that the techniques, right-sided or not, take the left into account already;
g) a bit of refusal to look at what people are actually doing, rather than theorize;
h) an extension of this principle of, "two-sidedness," to a frankly rather silly point, as in the arguments I've seen about doing forms on both sides rather than just on the right, as though all the forms weren't done on both sides anyway--last time I got into this discussion, I got admonished to do Short 2 on both sides...when I replied that I did already, I was told, "No, no, I mean starting on the left side rather than the right," which is fairly unnecessary. How do I know it's unnecessary? Well, I figured, never did that before and tried it...got it, easy, first time every time. 

Now I not only admit but insist that I'm speaking as someone who simply didn't train both sides of techs--I'm speaking out of what I'm used to, as are we all. And from what I can see, Les has a lot more experience than I. 

The manuals say a lot of things: I agree. Les has an excellent point, which he's taken the trouble to document. I just wonder...


----------



## Michael Billings

... do your own thing.  Give up the argument that the bilateral practice of techniques is not a "standard" or intended.  I did see Mr. Parker do Five Swords on the left (admittedly, only once.)  But I have seen "Hawkins" and "Liles", who I preface with either their first name or "Mister" as a sign of respect even if I do call them by their first names in private, (as I do Dian with "'Ms." when talking about her to the general public), have their students do left side of techniques in tests.  I was on the Board and they were UKS tests.  

Watch whose names you sling around in an attempt to bolster your argument.  This contradicts the position you are taking and the assertion of what "common practice" is now anyway.

Oss,
-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com


----------



## rmcrobertson

"Whose names you sling?"

Sorry,  Michael, but I fail to see the disrespect.  I've met some of these people, and Scott Higgins--probably for his sins in a past life--taught me for about two years. And should I be demanding that people I don't know address me as, "Dr. Robertson," now? Why? More importantly still, I was simply describing a tape of a test, which I was using as evidence. It struck me as odd that nobody at that level seemed to be doing techs on both sides at all, and it was never raised as an issue even once.
I quite agree about agreeing to disagree, which was what I wrote. I should be sorry to have offended you, given what always seems to be your intelligence and good manners.


----------



## Michael Billings

Not to be confused with others.  If I was talking about you to my students you would be "Doctor" or first and last name.  To each other it is not a matter of 'demanding' or 'insulting' or anything like that.  It is more the familiarity with some of the higher ranks and how that comes across to students with less time in their belt.  The familiarity may have been earned by you, but it has not been by many.  I do not want them calling these 2nd generation seniors by there last names only.  I understand it takes a little more time to type, Bob, Bryan, or Dian - or Mssrs. or Ms., much less "Professor" or whatever the title they have earned.  

I did not mean it to be a personal attack on you, or even on your stance about bilateral muscle memory, or ambidexterity - you just pushed one of my buttons regarding respect and the way we address each other in this forum - that is a public forum, not MartialTalk specifically.

Sorry, you said "Frog" and I jumped.

Respectfully,
-Michael
Kenpo-Texas.com


----------



## Goldendragon7

Since I have studied directly with SGM Ed Parker for many years & have had this same line of discussion with him personally ........ let me share my experiences and insights ....... 

Les is exactly right..... with several references from the "Journals" expressing his opinion on training "both" sides, Mr. Parker advised those who train to "cover all bases".  After all, we punch with the right and left, we kick with the right and left, we block with the right and the left....... it only makes sense to train other "drills" or exercises on BOTH sides.  

The Kenpo system DOES teach elements of both sides in its normal "one sided" curriculum as a bonus, but of the more intelligent, he suggests strongly that you train both sides, those that choose not to are not forced to, but allowed to choose their own path.

Mr. Parker believed in this so much that........ he also quoted in the Purple Belt Sayings ..... 
"While there is a difference between the terms "opposite" and "reverse" both provide answers to "THOROUGHLY" understanding the effects of motion".

As to actually "FORCING" students to train his various suggestions and insights into training His American Kenpo System, he was much more flexible and tolerant and allowed progress from the individual not a "cookie cutter" series of Hard Core Standards and retard or not allow promotion if this was not achieved, he was much more progressive than that. He would hope that the student would see the benefit of what he taught and utilize his insights. But lets not overlook his suggestions.  I'm not saying that everyone has to follow what you have just read, as did Ed Parker, but rather look at the logic and possible effects of a more in-depth study of the system.

Some have stated that it is a right side dominate system, and it is a "waste of time" to expand your physical skills on the left (as Mr. Parker suggested) well, if that is the case then they have to prove to me that they never practiced anything else on the left side either, such as blocks, punches, strikes, footwork, kicks, sets, forms, freestyle, etc., so thier skills are due just to their work on their natural dominate side, otherwise their statements are bogus and lack intelligent analyization.

BTW...... if you are naturally left handed you can just practice the "lefty" side and forget about the other... right? :rofl: 

Practice, practice, practice no matter what - keep at it and expand the variables.  Keep an open mind.

:asian:


----------



## Doc

Over the years there has been a misconception regarding the efficacy of right and left side training, yet the majority of teachers who preach this perspective themselves are not equally proficient on both sides. Mr. Parker spent a considerable amount of time looking into the concept and reached some rather interesting conclusions later on in my study with him. (That is not to suggests what he told someone else at another pont in time was wrong. I'm just talking about what I was told)

Most traditional styles and disciplines and even western boxing have techniques and moves used only from the left or right side. Most styles promote a left side forward to allow use of the right (strong) hand and leg from the rear. Even when the technique changes they still favor the right side. Even in these schools that promote equal side proficiency even the instructors don't actually achieve it.

The reasons are physiological involving a mental interaction with the bodys ability to perform. The problem lies in the brain. Each side of the body is controlled by opposite sides of the brain. For example, when learning a left kick, a synaptic pathway must be created or established through the right side of the brain and vise versa. No matter how you train, the left and right pathways will never be identical in function. Even though the two sides of the brain function together, they do not have identical ways of performing the same function. They may produce identical physical movement, but how the movements are produced and controlled from the brain are very different.

Additionally the human body is not symmetrical in the true sense of the word. It is normal for one leg or arm to be longer than the other and even different in diameter. Every muscle, tendon, cartilage, and even hair growth varies from side to side. World-class athletes do not stride, jump, throw, or move the same on both sides of the body. What is even more interesting is when an athlete is trained to be exactly symmetrical in their execution; it has been shown that physical performance actually declines. The body may be aesthetically symmetrical but not mathematically. 

We get in trouble in our expectations with regard to the weak side performance. If we anticipate we can train the weak side to perform equally with the strong, we are mistaken. Because of how the brain works, you cannot attain the exact same degree of skill on both sides. It would be like attempting to teach yourself to write equally as well with both hands. You may achieve an acceptable level on the weak side but the strong will always be better and dominant. Human beings have a natural physical preference to have a dominant side that is predetermined at birth. Even in cases where a person has activity dedicated dominance, they are always opposite of each other. I have a student who writes on one side, throws, on the other, and still in baseball bats opposite the throwing side. But these activities are still dedicated. He cant write, bat, or throw equally with both. This dominance is so strong in human behavior; it cannot be overcome by simple training. Experiment: Fold and interlock your arms across your chest. Which arm is on top, and which one is locked underneath. Got it? Now do the same thing but reverse their positions. Feeling awkward arent you? And you aren't under any stress.

In American Kenpo Mr. Parker recognized the importance of balance, but he also knew that balance had to take a back seat to practical application effectiveness. In the Chinese Arts students are taught opposite most other disciplines with the strong side forward for practicality.

In examining the idea of most techniques, they can be done on the prescribed side or they can be executed in what Mr. Parker called Half Mirror Image. That is a technique may be designed for one side attacking, however just because the opponent uses the other side or mirror doesnt mean you have to respond in kind. 

Thrusting Salute and Buckling Branch as techniques are both interchangeable whether the right or left kick is thrown. He goes to the mirror but you dont. Thats Half Mirror Image. This type of training requires one side be developed significantly to be functional. The opposite side will also be developed but performing a different function. Delayed Sword steps back with the right foot (the way I teach it) and executes with the front hand. Attacking Mace does just the opposite. Both techniques develop independent of each other on opposite sides of the body and they both function quite well. This is "Activity Dedicated Dominance," and that is what you learn in American Kenpo.

In symmetrical forms you are given the opportunity to express basic skills on both sides, which is a good thing, but no matter how well you perform, the strong side will always be better. But in a fight or confrontation you will always have a preference for one side over the other.

Remember American Kenpo is a self-defense art first, and many have confused sport training with self-defense training. Cross training and symmetrical performance borrowed from sport training must take a back seat to practical function. This will also make the astute re-examine the concept of the Positional Check. In SubLevel Four there are no such things. Passive movements are dysfunctional in human anatomy. Try running while swinging only one arm with the other in your pocket. The slap check in all its many subcategories and functions is always active. To achieve certain skills it is imperative that both sides of the body be active and functional at all times, never passive. Look at old film of The Kahuna, Ed Parker. He never had a passive hand, ever and he was a dominant right hander. 

As far as those purple belt quotes about both sides, remember that's the motion based system that gave you extensions and lots of things to do to keep you "busy." However once you have "perfected" one side of a technique, there is nothing wrong with doing the other side. The problem is you'll be so old by the time you do, you won't want to. Ed Parker didn't do both sides, or extensions.  Look at the film.


----------



## jeffkyle

Very insightful.  I enjoyed reading that.  Definitely alot to think about there!


----------



## Kenpodoc

Doc,

Good insightful reply.  I was trying to formulate a response but yours put mine to shame.

I have notice that playing with techniques on the opposite side frequently gives me further insight into the technique.  I find that changing sides frequently changes the majors and minors and lets me look at the technique in a new light.

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## Kirk

How do you do a tech on "the other side".  If you do it with your
left hand as written, then do you do it with your right hand?  If
you do it with your left foot, do you do it with your right?

So instead of a right inward block, you'd do a left inward block?


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *last time I got into this discussion, I got admonished to do Short 2 on both sides...when I replied that I did already, I was told, "No, no, I mean starting on the left side rather than the right," which is fairly unnecessary.*



Aside from the fact that I'm amused at the thought of me "admonishing" anyone to do anything, I'm sure you'll remember that we both realized, at about the same time, that we were talking at cross purposes.  I (the beginning student) was arguing a point based on the description of Short 2 in Infinite Insights, vol. 5, which only describes the form off one side, as well as on my own experience, since I'd only just learned the form and was only performing it off the right side; you (the advanced student) were arguing a point based on the fact that the salutation in II, vol. 5, indicates the form is done on both sides, and based on your experience as well.

Just in case I wasn't clear in that thread, I'll agree with your statement here:  starting the form on the other side isn't necessary for any sort of "kinesthetic symmetry" if you're already performing it on both sides.

The whole idea of some sort of "kinesthetic symmetry" is still certainly debatable, as this thread shows.  Thanks to both Doc and Goldendragon7 for some very interesting views on the subject.

Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson

I don't mean to be ill-mannered, but I think that "Singing Tiger," is missing the point. You can't do Short Form 2 only on one side. Both sides are not only integrated into the form, but they're an integral part of the "basic," form. 

And I have to add, I don't think, "admonished," was too strong a word. 

I quite take the point of various posters who have correctly brought out  Mr. Parker's statements about trying techs on both sides. However, I keep wondering why it's so important to do this at a basic level. More than that--and here I could easily be very wrong--I wonder about what's NOT being learned in this rush to symmetry.

Let me ask again:
1) Why, exactly, is symmetry thought of as an essential goal?
2) Is there a difference between right -haanded and right-sided?
3) Is the point about the body's more-or-less natural right-sidedness based on reality?
4) Is the point about what beginners are most likely to do, if they get into real trouble, based on reality?
5) Does too much ingenuity spoil the kenpo teaching?
6) Why not just work the forms, work the forms, work the forms, if symmetry's so important?

and here's a new one:
7) If we rush to be symmetrical, do we lose a difference between what the right hand's up to and what the left hand's up to that seems integral to the techs and the forms? 

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I don't mean to be ill-mannered, but I think that "Singing Tiger," is missing the point.*



Doesn't seem ill-mannered to me.  Adding, "because he's an idiot" would have been ill-mannered.



> *You can't do Short Form 2 only on one side. Both sides are not only integrated into the form, but they're an integral part of the "basic," form. *



Well, I really hadn't intended to have this discussion all over again, but I'll go another round if you want to.

Here's a quote from "Infinite Insights, vol. 5," p. 42:

"As stated previously your finger or fingers in the right palm *signifies* that you will be demonstrating the *right side only.*  When both palms are used, such as in the form shown, it *signifies* that you will be doing your form on *both the right and left sides.*"  (Bolding preserved from original text.)

That quote tells me that it is, indeed, possible to perform Short 2 on the right side only, regardless of what follows in the text.  Otherwise, why is there an alternate way of performing the salutation that would indicate it's going to be performed on the right side only if that's not even an option?

The diagrams for the salutation do show both palms being used.  This is followed by numbered descriptions of each movement in the form, with numbered diagrams corresponding to each of the numbered descriptions.  But it seems to me that this section only describes performing the form on the right side.  By saying that I don't mean to imply that only the right side of the body is used, simply that you are starting with the right side; I mean, how would you perform _any_ form using only the right side of the body?  In Short 1 would you go from a right inward block to a right vertical outward to a right upward to a right downward?  Which way would your stances change?  Certainly they couldn't change as described in "Infinite Insights."  I never understood Parker's use of the phrase "right side only" to mean that only one side of the body was used, I simply took it to mean that you're starting with the right side.  I'm certainly open to correction on that point:  if you or anyone else would like to describe fully any form as performed with "only the right side," followed by a description of the same form "using both sides," I'm all ears.

The way that I learned Short 2 was almost exactly as laid out in the descriptions/diagrams in "Infinite Insights," and I assumed that that was "right side only," with "left side only" being a mirror image, and "using both sides" indicating that, after the last movement described in "Infinite Insights," I'd start over with the left side (i.e., stepping forward with my left foot).

Getting back to the whole "symmetry" issue, the point I was trying to make was that, when using only one side (as I have described above), there may not be any movements (e.g., handsword) that are not done with both sides (hands), but there _are_ transitions that occur on one side but not on the other.  For example, when doing the right side only (as I have described above), there is a transition from a left handsword to a cat stance with both fists cocked at the belt, but there is no transition from a right handsword into a cat stance with both fists cocked at the belt.  If there is, please point out to me where it occurs in the diagrams provided in "Infinite Insights."  Whether or not that's important is, of course, the whole point of the discussion; clearly, you think it's not, while others might think it is.

Sorry for the lack of brevity, but it's awfully hard to try to describe movements based on text without getting wordy.



> *And I have to add, I don't think, "admonished," was too strong a word.*



I don't recall ever saying, "Bob, shame on you for never starting with your left foot," but whatever.

Rich


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by SingingTiger _
> *
> I never understood Parker's use of the phrase "right side only" to mean that only one side of the body was used, I simply took it to mean that you're starting with the right side.
> *



You are indeed correct sir, as I understand it. Even though a form may encompass both sides in its execution, it is not considered executed on both sides until you begin from the mirror image position. Although I do not find it significantly important with a form like Short Two to perform the mirror image, as written it is indeed right side only.

If you refer to my previous post on right versus left execution, than you understand that even with so-called symmetrical forms, mirror image execution accesses different synaptic pathways. Whether an individual finds validity in performing or teaching the left side of Short Two is a matter of personal preference. I for one, do not.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Thanks, but I think you're misreading the quote. 

I'd paraphrase it this way, expanding for clarity: "When you learned Short 1, you learned only the right side, at first. So, your salutation announced--signified--that you were only doing the right. When you added the left side, you should've changed your salutation to signify the left also. Now, you're learning Short 2...and 'When both palms are used, such as in the form shown, it signifies that you will be doing your form on both the right and left sides,' which tells me that this forms involves both sides right from the start. Otherwise, you'd only sign for the right side."

It isn't logical to argue that the left side isn't in the form from the start. Do you do all of what I'd call Short 2, and then 'repeat' the form starting out by stepping with the left foot? If not, why then sign for both sides?

I thought I was agreeing with Doc, but I see we've cleared that nasty situation up. Joke aside, though, I'd suggest that the reason the "left" extra side of 2 is pointless is that it's already in there...

I'd be interested to see takes on the other questions I asked...like why exactly is symmetry a value, anyway?

Again, thank you.


----------



## Doc

Far be it for me to act as a referee but both are correct, and the confusion like many topics, comes from Ed Parker.  

Short Two does indeed include the left side it its right side physical presentation (as stated), but it is still considered by Ed Parkers definition to be the right side, (right side brain dominant.) 

You do not reverse the synaptic and cerebellar pathway responsibilities for movement until the mirror image is done. This what Parker meant by left side. To begin the form from the opposite side reverses all mental functions and changes muscle response significantly enough to have merit. 

Whether this is necessary in teaching/training is dependent on how you train. Those who borrow sport concepts like cross training seem to put more value into it than those who concentrate on self-defense in my experience.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *
> Delayed Sword steps back with the right foot (the way I teach it) and executes with the front hand. *



Typing too fast while trying to think. Delayed Sword steps back with the LEFT foot."


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Kenpodoc _
> *Doc,
> 
> Good insightful reply.  I was trying to formulate a response but yours put mine to shame.
> 
> I have notice that playing with techniques on the opposite side frequently gives me further insight into the technique.  I find that changing sides frequently changes the majors and minors and lets me look at the technique in a new light.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff *



Thank you sir. Your particular insight and experience is much appreciated.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by jeffkyle _
> *Very insightful.  I enjoyed reading that.  Definitely alot to think about there!
> *



With regard to that message: DITTO!!!!


----------



## Kenpodoc

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *How do you do a tech on "the other side".  If you do it with your
> left hand as written, then do you do it with your right hand?  If
> you do it with your left foot, do you do it with your right?
> 
> So instead of a right inward block, you'd do a left inward block? *



Good question.  I was merely talking about a mirror image of the technique.  I also like to play  techniques with other opposites, ie. Delayed sword outside of a L punch/push, or Delayed sword stepping in, or delayed sword outside of the R punch/push.  You find you need to change weapons, timing etc., etc.  I find myself proudly finding a solution only to find its already a technique I know. (ie. Delayed Sword but step with R foot to 3 o clock, is suddenly checking the storm.)  

I never had the pleasure to meet Mr. Parker but I suspect he felt no need to rigorously learn the mirror image of each technique because each student was expected to use the rules of motion and discover the near infinite variety of responses available.  The techniques aren't Kenpo they are a way to convey the mental, physical, physiologic and emotional knowlege that is American Kenpo.

Have Fun

Jeff


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Thanks, but I think you're misreading the quote.*



You're welcome, and I think I'm not.

Your paraphrase is interesting, but I don't believe it's accurate.  As evidence, I'd point to the description of the opening salutation for Short Form 1 in "Infinite Insights, vol. 5," which is on page 14.  In this description, Parker uses exactly the same verbage as what I quoted in my post above (from the description of the salutation for Short Form 2).  In the diagrams that show the salutation, both palms are used, just as they are in the diagrams that show the salutation for Short Form 2.  Yet the descriptions of the moves for Short Form 1, along with the corresponding diagrams, only show the form off the right side.  In the case of Short Form 1, this is even pointed out by the text following the description of the final move:

"*NOTE:*  You may continue the left side of this form by doing the exact moves (illustrations 2 through 16) to the opposite side (mirror image of the right side)."

So we have:
1.  A description of a salutation indicating that the use of both palms signifies that both sides will be performed, and that the use of only one palm would indicate that only one side will be performed;
2.  Diagrams for the salutation that show both palms being used;
3.  Descriptions and diagrams for only the "right side" of the form;
4.  An indication that the left side can be added by performing a mirror image of the moves described.

The only item missing in the subsequent descriptions of Long Form 1 and Short Form 2 is #4.  But given the existence of numbers 1, 2, and 3 in both cases, I believe that #4 is clearly implied.  If it's not, then you'd have to argue that Short Form 1 is the _only_ form that can be performed on one side only, and that would seem to invalidate the whole palm/finger(s) indication system:  why not just teach Short 1 on both sides from the start and forget the "one side or both sides" issue?

The end of your paraphrase reads:



> *...and 'When both palms are used, such as in the form shown, it signifies that you will be doing your form on both the right and left sides,' which tells me that this forms involves both sides right from the start. Otherwise, you'd only sign for the right side."*



So is your argument that the _only_ way to perform Short 2 is by performing it as described in the diagrams in "Infinite Insights" followed by the mirror image of what's described, and that only performing the movements as described is incomplete?  Or is your argument that the form is properly performed by performing only the movements described, and that that _is_ using both sides, since both sides at one point or another do the same thing?

If it's the former, then I disagree based on what I wrote above:  it seems obvious to me that the three forms described in "Infinite Insights" are described and diagrammed similarly -- that is, only the right side is described and diagrammed -- and that it is perfectly acceptable to perform any of them on one side only despite the fact that all three salutations are diagrammed showing the use of both palms.  As far as I'm concerned, the fact that all of them are described on one side only _and_ all of the salutations indicate both sides only supports that argument; further, I'd argue that assuming that one salutation description means one thing while another salutation description means something else is really reaching.

If it's the latter (which I doubt), then please explain how Short 1 is any different:  both hands perform inward blocks, both hands perform outward blocks, etc., so why would Parker indicate that the "left side" is a mirror image?



> *It isn't logical to argue that the left side isn't in the form from the start. Do you do all of what I'd call Short 2, and then 'repeat' the form starting out by stepping with the left foot? If not, why then sign for both sides?*



That depends partially on what "you'd call Short 2," the answer to which should be evident in your answer to my question above.  The way I perform Short 2 is as it is described in "Infinite Insights," and, if we did salutations, I'd use only one palm (feel free to berate me for belonging to a non-EPAK school where salutations are not required).  I'd start using both palms when I start performing the mirror image of what's described.

Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson

Thanks, again, but I'm afraid that some of what you've written isn't correct.

Most importantly, Short 1, Long 1, and Short 3 all separate the right and left sides of the form quite distinctly. One learns the right side first--and, I might note, continues throughout the forms to start off with the right side--and then, the left. And in fact, all three of these forms work precisely as I argued you'd have to work Short 2 if you were to do some additional, "left," side that isn't in the basic form: you sign for both sides, run the first half of the form emphasizing the right sided, then run the form "again" (I'm using quotes because it's the second half of the form, not something new) and emphasize the left side. 

It is also worth noting that Long 3, 4, 5, 6 intertwine both sides, of course, but they also keep the sides distinctly separate. It's a real interweaving of different strands--and is anybody out there teaching the Long forms on both sides, whatever that would mean?

Moreover, of course I agree that it's possible, perhaps even desirable, to vary one's training to emphasize different things, if for no other reason than to avoid turning stale. But let me ask again: if you think that Short 2 has a left side that isn't in "Inf. Insights," and that you're supposed to be doing that side, do you do Short 2 in two halves, one stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot? Somehow, I get the feeling that the answer is, "No."

I'd also be interested to see some responses to the questions I keep asking--starting with, "Why exactly is symmetry a positive good in the first place?" and continuing on into, "What's the best way to teach students to become symmetrical?" and including, "Do we lose anything in prematurely rushing to develop symmetry?"

One idea does come up: running, say, Kicking Set 1 on both sides might be very interesting. I'd suggest, though, that that kind of exploration is left to individual students for a very good reason--it's quite possible to teach too much and forestall real development, something I suspect I do all too often as a teacher.

Again, thanks.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh, post-script. Skipping the "berate me," deal, I've a question and a statement. If you don't do the salutations at all, what's going to happen when you get to Long 4, 5, 6, where a change in the salutation flows right into what's clearly the start of the form? As for the statement--I was taught that the salutation is a part of the form, not some superadded intro and postscript.

Still, it's an interesting discussion--and I quite liked the stuff about mirrors and half-mirrors.


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Thanks, again, but I'm afraid that some of what you've written isn't correct.*



Nothing that you've written so far convinces me of that fact.

You asked:



> *if you think that Short 2 has a left side that isn't in "Inf. Insights," and that you're supposed to be doing that side, do you do Short 2 in two halves, one stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot?*



I thought that what I posted before answered this, but I'll answer it again.  I learned Short Form 2 almost exactly as it is described in "Infinite Insights."  Based on the fact that I learned Short Form 1 almost exactly as it is described in "Infinite Insights," and based on the fact that the description of Short Form 1 not only appears to be a description of the "right side only" but that fact is clearly stated in the textual note following the description, I believe that what I have learned is the "right side" of Short Form 2.  At this point in my training at my school, I'm expected to be able to perform Short Form 1 on both sides, but I am not expected to be able to perform Short Form 2 on both sides; I haven't asked, so I'm not sure that I ever will be expected to do this, but if I am, it would make perfect sense to me, and I would do so in exactly the same way that I perform Short Form 1 on both sides:  by coming back to the meditating horse stance that is the last position described in both forms, and immediately starting again by stepping forward with my left foot.

Now that I've answered that question as completely as I can, I'd really appreciate answers to the questions that I asked you.  Specifically:

1.  How is it exactly that you perform Short Form 2?  Do you only perform the movements as described in "Infinite Insights," as I suspect from your question to me?
2.  If that's the case, how is it that you can claim that Short Form 1 "separates the right and left sides of the form quite distinctly," but Short Form 2 does not?
3.  If that's _not_ the case, and you perform Short Form 2 as you specified in your question to me ("stepping forward with the right the first time, run through the form, come back to the meditating horse facing 12:00, then run the second half of the form starting with your left foot"), then how is it that it's reasonable to perform Short Form 1 on only one side, as it's described, but it's not reasonable to perform Short Form 2 on only one side, as it's described?

My own thought on question #2 -- which, I think, is the critical point here -- is that both Short Form 1 and Short Form 2, as described in "Infinite Insights," use both sides of the body equally.  In one, you step back and perform an inward block with one hand, then you step back and perform an inward block with the other hand; in the other, you step forward with a block and a handsword with one hand, then you step forward with a block and a handsword with the other hand.  How is one "separating the sides distinctly," while the other is not?



> *It is also worth noting that Long 3, 4, 5, 6 intertwine both sides, of course, but they also keep the sides distinctly separate. It's a real interweaving of different strands--and is anybody out there teaching the Long forms on both sides, whatever that would mean?*



Long Form 1 is the only long form that I've learned so far, but I've seen the more advanced forms performed.  It certainly seems to me that the interweaving you mention, and that I've seen, does, indeed, take care of "performing the form on the other side."  Although I won't know for sure until I learn the forms, I suspect that the exact reason for this is that _no new transitions would be introduced by performing a mirror image_.



> *I'd also be interested to see some responses to the questions I keep asking*



I suspect our argument has bored most readers (for the second time), but what _I'd_ be interested in seeing is some input from some other instructors on the Short Form 2 issue.



> *what's going to happen when you get to Long 4, 5, 6, where a change in the salutation flows right into what's clearly the start of the form?*



I'm not sure.  I've seen salutations done with the more advanced forms, but my understanding is that it's up to the student and his/her instructor whether or not to learn them.



> *I was taught that the salutation is a part of the form, not some superadded intro and postscript*



From what I've read, that's the way it's taught in EPAK schools.  Seems like there's value in it to me, but different schools, different schools of thought on what's important and what's not.  For my part, I don't find the existence (or lack thereof) of a salutation at the beginning and ending of a form to be an overriding concern when determining where to study, it's just one of many variables.

Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson

First off, Rich, if you're going to hang on to "Infinite Insights," well, you're stuck with the idea that the salutations are indeed parts of the form.

Second off, I've already made myself clear about how I do--and teach--Short 2.

Third off, I asked a set of questions about this symmetry business too, you know. I'm afraid I don't feel any more obligated to answer questions than anybody else.

I think I'm going to drop this now. I don't seem to be getting my points across, and it's getting repetitive.


----------



## Goldendragon7




----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> * *



Alligator, I mean agitator.


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *First off, Rich, if you're going to hang on to "Infinite Insights," well, you're stuck with the idea that the salutations are indeed parts of the form.*



Fine.  I'll stipulate to the fact that I was taught incorrectly.  Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand, the "left side, right side, both sides" thing.



> *Second off, I've already made myself clear about how I do--and teach--Short 2.*



You're welcome to consider me thick, but I didn't find your explanations "clear."  It seems to me that a simple, "I perform Short Form 2 exactly as it's described in 'Infinite Insights,'" or "I perform Short Form 2 as it's described in 'Infinite Insights' followed by the mirror image" would have taken no more time to type than what you _did_ type.



> *Third off, I asked a set of questions about this symmetry business too, you know. I'm afraid I don't feel any more obligated to answer questions than anybody else.*



I'm sure you recognize the difference between the two types of questions, mine being direct.  And you shouldn't be too disappointed about not receiving any answers:  from what I've seen and heard on this board, the reason nobody's answering is that you're asking for opinions, but whenever anybody shares one, you dismiss it as an incorrect fact -- with you holding the correct fact, of course.

Whatever.  I'm happy to accept your unwillingness to answer as your way of saying, "I can't explain how Short Form 1 as described separates the two sides distinctly but Short Form 2 as described does not."

I hope this thread has at least been a source of some amusement to somebody out there.

Rich


----------



## Kenpomachine

Doc replied to the symmetry thing...


----------



## rmcrobertson

Rich, I'm sorry that I annoyed you--guess I was in a crankier mood than I thought when I responded. 

Guess I'll put it this way:
1) kenpo, I've been taught, is a right-sided dominant martial arts system.
2) this right-sidedness--at least in theory--comes out of our natural responses--and, at a distance, out of the Asian philosophies that were part of the styles in which kenpo is rooted
3) as a long-term goal, kenpo--like all this Asian-origin arts of which I am aware--teaches a qualified symmetry
4) however, this symmetry--as a goal, if not as something that's going to be fully realized--takes a long time to develop
5) the premature development of symmetry--like premature interpretation in psychoanalysis--hampers a student's development, and cripples their ability to defend themselves
6) this is in part because there's a lot of interesting stuff tucked away in that left side, which becomes visible and usable only after long practice--and only if you keep that left side distinctly separate from the right
7) the forms--not the techs through 2nd Brown, but the forms--together with the sets, develop a measure of symmetry in their own good time
8) running the techs on both sides is irrelevant to self-defense, and has a lot more to do with the inventiveness of teachers than with what helps students
9) Short Form 2 is indeed done the way it's described in "Infinite Insights." That description contains BOTH sides of the form. 
10) When you do, say, 5 Swords on the opposite side (which, by the way, is integral to Long Form 4), nothing changes. So what if it's a left roundhouse punch? The targets are the same, your feet are in the same place...try plain ol' 5 Swords against a left punch, though, and things change...

I rechecked the text ("Inf. Insights"), and both Short 1 and Long 1 are shown on the right side only. There is a note at the end of the Short 1 stuff about doing the left side, and I assume you're meant to carry this over into Long 1. However, Short 2 is illustrated in its entireity--and, I might add, this is refelcted in the way these three forms are taught. Short 1 is taught first only on the right, for yellow belt; for orange, the left is added. Long 1, similarly, is taught first on the right only; the left is added fairly casually, since by this stage a student should be able to figure out the complementary side for themselves, more or less. However, Short 2 is taught right and left "sides" together. 

Long 2 is taught both sides together, and by the way is a very asymmetrical form, apparently because of its origins. Short 3 is taught right side only at first, and often the student is left to figure out the other side on their own. Long 4? Both sides intertwined, and this continues true for 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Again, Rich, I am sorry to have been impolite. However, you are incorrect in some of your assumptions, and--for good or bad--I merely said so. 

I might also note that there is a difference between having a right to an opinion or idea, and being correct. In this case, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. In others, I clearly am. Oh well.

Thanks.


----------



## SingingTiger

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Rich, I'm sorry that I annoyed you*



That's okay, I'm used to it.

As far as your opinions about "symmetry in kenpo," I have no problem with them.  I agree with some of them, I disagree with some of them, and I'm neutral on some of them because I haven't studied long enough to make an informed judgment.

The only thing I'm really interested in in this particular discussion is your claim that Short Form 1 as described is the "right side only," but Short Form 2 as described contains "both sides of the form":



> *Short Form 2 is indeed done the way it's described in "Infinite Insights." That description contains BOTH sides of the form.*



To paraphrase what you like to say, the fact that you keep claiming it to be true doesn't mean that it is true.  I think it's somewhat humorous that you write about Short 1 and Long 1 showing the right side only, and that you're willing to assume that the note at the end of Short 1 applies to Long 1 as well, but that it _doesn't_ apply to Short 2, which is described in exactly the same style as the other two.

So the bottom line in the whole opinion/fact thing is this:  If you can provide some sort of proof that Short 2 as described contains both sides while the other two do not (and frankly I can't imagine what that might be, save perhaps a handwritten note from Ed Parker), I'll consider you correct as a matter of *fact*; if you can provide a reasonable explanation as to how one form which has a movement on the right side followed by the same movement on the left side separates the two sides distinctly, but another form which has several movements on the right side followed by the same several movements on the left side in the same order does _not_ separate the two sides distinctly, and I agree with your explanation, I'll consider you correct as a matter of *opinion*; and if you can't provide such an explanation or I don't agree with the one you come up with, I'll consider you incorrect as a matter of *opinion*.  And I have no problem having an opinion that differs from yours, until you say that your opinion is a fact; then I'll argue until, well, everybody stops reading the thread (which probably happened 10 posts ago, unless people are still reading it just to laugh at both of us).

One more note on the issue:



> *However, Short 2 is illustrated in its entireity--and, I might add, this is refelcted in the way these three forms are taught.*



By who?  Maybe by you.  Not by my instructor (I found out where the left side of Short Form 2 is required at my school this past Saturday).  Not by at least one well-known and well-respected instructor who I know studied directly under Parker.  I suspect not by many others.  Once again, your experience does not constitute a universal reality.



> *I might also note that there is a difference between having a right to an opinion or idea, and being correct.*



Duly noted (as it has been every other time you've written it).  Now all you have to do is figure out the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson

OK, Rich, thanks for your remarks.


----------



## SingingTiger

You're welcome, thanks for yours.

Rich


----------



## Goldendragon7

You two guys get a gold star in my book!!   thank you for your positive ending to your discussion.  That was nice!

:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *You two guys get a gold star in my book!!   thank you for your positive ending to your discussion.  That was nice!
> 
> :asian: *



Awwwwwwwww Shaaaaadup!
(hopefully that will give this string the appropriate negative ending it deserves)


----------



## Brother John

Can I have a gold star, Pleeeeeeze.....

Your Brother (Plays well with others)
John


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by Brother John _
> *Can I have a gold star, Pleeeeeeze.....  Your Brother (Plays well with others) John
> *



Well, if it wasn't for that nasty instructor of yours..........:rofl: J/K,
tell Roger hi for me.    

and yes you deserve a gold star also ....... you have had similar discussions and kept your head well.  I'm proud of you guys for that.

 :asian:


----------



## Ronin

Didnt we talk about this subject before and it became a heated debate?  I better get my sparring gear on!!


----------



## gman

I can see practicing on both sides for many reasons but aren't the black belt techniques somewhat extensive and would therefore be fairly complicated? (I wouldn't know 'cause I'm not a black belt.)


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by gman _*
> I can see practicing on both sides for many reasons.
> *



I can too!



> _Originally posted by gman _*
> Aren't the black belt techniques somewhat extensive and would therefore be fairly complicated?
> *



No, not complicated... nothing in our system is complicated, if it were Mr. Parker said it was constipated ....:LOL:.... but rather sophisticated or simplicity compounded..... 

They are somewhat more advanced than the lower ranked material however look at where you are....... Shouldn't you be learning advanced material at the advanced level anyways?

 

:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

Out side of exploring ideas there is no reason to learn a tech on both sides. pick your favorite neutral an fight out of that neutral. Spending valuable training time learning to be a southpaw might be fun and interesting but it is unusefull for your basic combat readiness. What you will find though is that Mr. Parker designed similar techs that resemble eachother but always require the right hand to be dominant. Eventualy your ability to do like ideas on either side will become easier but, once again, learn to fight your fight.


----------



## Seig

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Out side of exploring ideas there is no reason to learn a tech on both sides. pick your favorite neutral an fight out of that neutral. Spending valuable training time learning to be a southpaw might be fun and interesting but it is unusefull for your basic combat readiness. . *


What about us South Paws?  Should we then not have to learn the base side of the techhnique?


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *What about us South Paws?  Should we then not have to learn the base side of the techhnique? *



As a southpaw, the problems and anomolies associated with learning a "martial art" are the same as you encounter associated with everything else in life.  The system is designed for a right handed person, as most things are. . Learning it as it is taught doesn't change the physiology of learning. My left handed students simply learn and are excellent students who are accustomed to a right handed world.  If anything, they have a slight  learning curve advantage in the beginning by having the opportunity to develop their "weak" side initially. But , ultimately they have no more advantage than a right handed person because of the same  anatomical limitations of neuro synaptic pathway dominance.


----------



## jeffkyle

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *As a southpaw, the problems and anomolies associated with learning a "martial art" are the same as you encounter associated with everything else in life.  The system is designed for a right handed person, as most things are. . Learning it as it is taught doesn't change the physiology of learning. My left handed students simply learn and are excellent students who are accustomed to a right handed world.  If anything, they have a slight  learning curve advantage in the beginning by having the opportunity to develop their "weak" side initially. But , ultimately they have no more advantage than a right handed person because of the same  anatomical limitations of neuro synaptic pathway dominance. *



Agreed!


----------



## Brother John

Hey yall...
Just looking over this fine thread and wondering, COULD those of you that disagree with training on both sides write out the points of your argument????
for instance...
I feel that training a technique on the "off" side is not good (or ill-advised....whatever) because:
1.
2.
3.
4.
etc.

It would help this simpleton understand where you are coming from better...
Humor a brother..........
Your Brother
John


----------



## clapping_tiger

I know you brought this thread up again to get more reasons from people who disagree with doing their techniques on both sides, but I just want to put my 2 cents worth in on why you should practice your techniques on both sides.

Even though there are obvious reasons for doing so, such as developing your weaker side, I feel that one of the key benefits is that it helps you learn the techniques, and movements more in depth. You really have to break down the technique, and think about what you are doing. The end result is a better understanding of how to flow, and put all the basics together (which all the techniques are, basics in a set order). This allows you to free your movements and blend and borrow your techniques.   I know there are some people out there who might think that techniques on both sides has nothing to do with blending techniques and extensions, but if you can do every movement with either side like it was nothing, your body is free to go. And to me, the kenpo techniques are just a teaching tool. They teach you first hand all the principles and theories of motion and such, but do you honestly think that on the street you will do a full technique?? No matter how many times you practice a technique, a person on the street will never react the same. So I feel being able to blend and borrow, switch direction, and revise targets is the ultimate goal.

Did I just babble on and on??  I think I did, and for that I apologize.

-Jason Johnson


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by clapping_tiger _
> Even though there are obvious reasons for doing so, such as developing your weaker side, I feel that one of the key benefits is that it helps you learn the techniques, and movements more in depth.



Well if you're just studying "motion" I guess that would be true. From our perspective techniques are not about motion but physical principles of interaction. As far as your "weaker" side, that is what symetrical forms are for, not "application techniques." 



> You really have to break down the technique, and think about what you are doing.



That's fine if you're teaching yourself, which unfortunately many have to do. You can't "DISCOVER" how to make them effective no matter how much you "play" with them.



> The end result is a better understanding of how to flow, and put all the basics together (which all the techniques are, basics in a set order). This allows you to free your movements and blend and borrow your techniques.



But it won't teach you how to make them work.



> I know there are some people out there who might think that techniques on both sides has nothing to do with blending techniques and extensions,



Guilty as charged.



> but if you can do every movement with either side like it was nothing, your body is free to go.



Go where? Without an understanding of HOW to move, you're just "flailing."



> And to me, the kenpo techniques are just a teaching tool. They teach you first hand all the principles and theories of motion and such,



Theory yes, principles, no.



> but do you honestly think that on the street you will do a full technique??



Not if you have truly learned something. 



> No matter how many times you practice a technique, a person on the street will never react the same.



Correction! "No matter how many times you practice a "motion" technique, a person on the street will never react the same.



> So I feel being able to blend and borrow, switch direction, and revise targets is the ultimate goal.



However if you don't know how, when, what targets to attack; .....


----------



## Kenpomachine

I've recently had a micro breaking of a pectoral fiber and had to swith sides for some techniques, to avoid worsening. Point is: we don't usually train tehcniques both sides but it wasn't so difficult once you know the technique one sided well enough.
If I were to train both sides, it'll take a lot more time to internalize the technique than working it the way it was meant. And then you have those white belts that keep attacking cutching feathers with the right hand to work the other side :rofl:


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Kenpomachine _
> *And then you have those white belts that keep attacking cutching feathers with the right hand to work the other side :rofl: *



 Just continue Clutching Feathers as if it were a left hand grab. All you need to do is alter the weapon of the palm heel. I find using the right hand grab better because after I middle knuckle my right hand frictional pulls to the wrist to continue the tech. with B1aH (on the opposite side :uhoh: ); or continue with the raking back knuckle whichever you prefer.


----------



## Brother John

But it won't teach you how to make them work.

Mr. Chapel, 
seems to me that it would be their teacher that teaches them how to make any technique work, regardless of the side it is worked on. I dont think hes discussing how to make techniques work.

Go where? Without an understanding of HOW to move, you're just "flailing."

I dont understand where you are coming from Mr. Chapel. Do you think that Mr. Johnson doesnt have an understanding of how to move before he tries working the techs on another side? Are you suggesting that he doesnt have the HOW?

guess I just don't see what you are saying...
Your Brother
John


----------



## Seig

> _Originally posted by Doc _
> *As a southpaw, the problems and anomolies associated with learning a "martial art" are the same as you encounter associated with everything else in life.  The system is designed for a right handed person, as most things are. . Learning it as it is taught doesn't change the physiology of learning. My left handed students simply learn and are excellent students who are accustomed to a right handed world.  If anything, they have a slight  learning curve advantage in the beginning by having the opportunity to develop their "weak" side initially. But , ultimately they have no more advantage than a right handed person because of the same  anatomical limitations of neuro synaptic pathway dominance. *


Doc,
It was rhetorical question.  I have been training since I was a toddler.  Through habits and a few serious injuries, I have become 97% ambidextreous.  I try and pass the advantages this conveys on to my students.:asian:


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by Seig _
> *Doc,
> It was rhetorical question.  I have been training since I was a toddler.  Through habits and a few serious injuries, I have become 97% ambidextreous.  I try and pass the advantages this conveys on to my students.:asian: *


I have several right brain guys who had to grow up in a left brain world. 2 of them are uniform cops. Weird, and you guys right funny too.


----------



## clapping_tiger

Doc,

At this point in my training, I am focused on movement. I test for my Black Belt, on May 31st. I in no way claiming to be at a level of understanding that several people in this forum have, but what did attract me to Kenpo is that there is room for individual ideas and a degree of understanding of what Kenpo is to each person. For my own reasons, at this point, I am not interested in going into the degree of study that you have, maybe in a few more years, I have been training in Kenpo for just over 3 years. My goal right now is to be able to effectively and efficiently defend myself and my loved ones. So an understanding of how my body moves, and how my opponents body moves and reacts to my strikes is my focus right now. I do understand how to move and can do it the same on either side of my body. If a person attacks me from my right or left, from a 90 degree, 45 degree, or 13 degree angle I want to be able to just move and enter at any angle and any side. For example, one of my mini tests required for Black my school,  is to be able to effectively defend yourself against 20 consecutive attacks from random angles and random attacks. You need to do this at 100% no errors. If I had to think about which side the next attacks is coming from I would never be able to get past the first 5 attacks, which for this drill 5 people attack 4 times and are constantly moving. When they are set I make a note of what is around me, who is where and which side is in lead, if any. When the drill begins first few attacks are always a technique, but after that it is just reaction, so without being equally effective on each side, you are done after a few attacks.  

I know that you may never be attacked by 20 attackers, but it is not out of the realm of reality to be attacked by 2 or 3 people, and if you dont put them out they may come in again and again from different places to try to get you from some weak spot. If you always practice fighting from a dominant right side, you are quite weak from a left attack. 
This is just my thoughts. I am not saying it is a rule, and right for everyone. This is what works for me, and my reasons for training.

As far as teaching yourself, dont we all to some degree bring something new to the table. We all have taught ourselves to some degree. No matter how good the teacher is we bring in our own style. Isnt the teacher just the guide to our martial arts training? If what they teach is the only way to do it, we would all be clones of each other in Kenpo. From my understanding, that is not the way Kenpo was supposed to be. That is just my take on it.

-With much respect, Jason Johnson


----------



## Kirk

I asked Sigung LaBounty what he felt about doing techniques on
both sides, this saturday.  He said that while there can be benefit from doing techs on both sides, he personally feels that 1) the techniques and forms cover both sides already, and 2) the time spent working on the opposite side can be better spent on something else, and more effectively at that.


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by clapping_tiger _
> *Doc,
> 
> At this point in my training, I am focused on movement. I test for my Black Belt, on May 31st. I in no way claiming to be at a level of understanding that several people in this forum have, but what did attract me to Kenpo is that there is room for individual ideas and a degree of understanding of what Kenpo is to each person. For my own reasons, at this point, I am not interested in going into the degree of study that you have, maybe in a few more years, I have been training in Kenpo for just over 3 years. My goal right now is to be able to effectively and efficiently defend myself and my loved ones. So an understanding of how my body moves, and how my opponents body moves and reacts to my strikes is my focus right now. I do understand how to move and can do it the same on either side of my body. If a person attacks me from my right or left, from a 90 degree, 45 degree, or 13 degree angle I want to be able to just move and enter at any angle and any side. For example, one of my mini tests required for Black my school,  is to be able to effectively defend yourself against 20 consecutive attacks from random angles and random attacks. You need to do this at 100% no errors. If I had to think about which side the next attacks is coming from I would never be able to get past the first 5 attacks, which for this drill 5 people attack 4 times and are constantly moving. When they are set I make a note of what is around me, who is where and which side is in lead, if any. When the drill begins first few attacks are always a technique, but after that it is just reaction, so without being equally effective on each side, you are done after a few attacks.
> 
> I know that you may never be attacked by 20 attackers, but it is not out of the realm of reality to be attacked by 2 or 3 people, and if you dont put them out they may come in again and again from different places to try to get you from some weak spot. If you always practice fighting from a dominant right side, you are quite weak from a left attack.
> This is just my thoughts. I am not saying it is a rule, and right for everyone. This is what works for me, and my reasons for training.
> 
> As far as teaching yourself, dont we all to some degree bring something new to the table. We all have taught ourselves to some degree. No matter how good the teacher is we bring in our own style. Isnt the teacher just the guide to our martial arts training? If what they teach is the only way to do it, we would all be clones of each other in Kenpo. From my understanding, that is not the way Kenpo was supposed to be. That is just my take on it.
> 
> -With much respect, Jason Johnson *



Mr. Johnson,

From your answer it would appear to me you have an absolutely clear grasp of where you are in the art, and you seem intelligently focused on your goals and objectives relative to your position in the learning process. How refreshing. I salute you sir and I have no diagreement with your perspectives. Thank you for such a cogent response to what is really a complex issue. I hope that you will have the desire, and we will have the opportunity to get together somewhere down the line.:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I asked Sigung LaBounty what he felt about doing techniques on
> both sides, this saturday.  He said that while there can be benefit from doing techs on both sides, he personally feels that 1) the techniques and forms cover both sides already, and 2) the time spent working on the opposite side can be better spent on something else, and more effectively at that. *



Amen to that


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> *Amen to that *


Heeeey, that's what I said.


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I asked Sigung LaBounty what he felt about doing techniques on
> both sides, this saturday.  He said that while there can be benefit from doing techs on both sides, he personally feels that 1) the techniques and forms cover both sides already, and 2) the time spent working on the opposite side can be better spent on something else, and more effectively at that. *



Geez, isn't that what I've been saying all this time as well.      

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Jill666

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _
> *Geez, isn't that what I've been saying all this time as well.
> 
> Have a great Kenpo day
> 
> Clyde *



Hahahaha yes it is- I haven't followed the thread for a couple of weeks, but it's funny to tune back in at pretty much the place I left. 

And since I already gave my opinion, I'll shut up now.


----------



## clapping_tiger

Doc, 
thank you for the compliment. It would be an honor to get together someday. I know there is a lot I could learn from you. :asian: 

-Jason Johnson


----------



## Doc

> _Originally posted by clapping_tiger _
> *Doc,
> thank you for the compliment. It would be an honor to get together someday. I know there is a lot I could learn from you. :asian:
> 
> -Jason Johnson *



And I from you as well.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Look, if you choose to spend a lot of time learning to fight in either neutral, in a pinch, you will choose one or the other in a fight for your life. It is at this point that all your trainig on the opposite side amounts to a hill of beans. If you conciously choose to fight on your weeker side and the fight becomes more challanging you will then choose to switch neutrals. The transition from one stance to another is dangerous business. If you were loosing badly enough to abandon your methods, how in the hell are you going to survive stepping forward or back into your prefered stance. The answer is you don't.   
      This isn't about handling attacks from all angles; this is about having a right or left side dominance. There is a big difference. I am left handed but I choose to fight as a right hander because I've always prefered to have my dominant leg forward and I've always thrown with my right hand because that is how I was taught as a child. My comfort zone is in a left neutral. If I jumped up into a right neutral against an opponent I would just feel awkward. I've developed a strong right hand but I have a mean left Jab. To reverse this game I've been working on for the last twenty years would just be downright counter-productive. I've always been equaly un-coordinated with either hand, so I can play whichever side I work on, but if you are right handed, fight right handed; because, life is too short and you only get one chance to save it.


----------



## kenpo3631

I too practiced my techniques on both sides   Then one day while talking with my current instructor I posed to him the same question. He in turn responded much like Sigung LaBounty





> He said that while there can be benefit from doing techs on both sides, he personally feels that 1) the techniques and forms cover both sides already, and 2) the time spent working on the opposite side can be better spent on something else, and more effectively at that.


. 

I wonder where they got that perspective from...? :rofl:


----------



## ProfessorKenpo

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Since I have studied directly with SGM Ed Parker for many years & have had this same line of discussion with him personally ........ let me share my experiences and insights .......
> 
> Some have stated that it is a right side dominate system, and it is a "waste of time" to expand your physical skills on the left (as Mr. Parker suggested) well, if that is the case then they have to prove to me that they never practiced anything else on the left side either, such as blocks, punches, strikes, footwork, kicks, sets, forms, freestyle, etc., so thier skills are due just to their work on their natural dominate side, otherwise their statements are bogus and lack intelligent analyization.
> 
> BTW...... if you are naturally left handed you can just practice the "lefty" side and forget about the other... right? :rofl:
> 
> Practice, practice, practice no matter what - keep at it and expand the variables.  Keep an open mind.
> 
> :asian: *



As  you are a student of Mr. Labounty now Dennis (You did recieve your 6th from him), how can this statement have merit?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo _*
> As you are a student of Mr. Labounty now Dennis (You did recieve your 6th from him), how can this statement have merit?
> Have a great Kenpo day,Clyde
> *



LOL, Come on Clyde, you are kidding right..... I thought you were wiser than that....... lol  

First of all... my relationship with Mr. LaBounty goes back some 32 years.  He was the Senior of the organization I was in prior to having the opportunity of studying with Mr. Parker........ so not only did he promote me to 6th, but he was behind my 1st, & 2nd as well, throughout our long lasting relationship, we have shared and debated throughout the years.  

I don't recall "anywhere", where it was necessary to  have the "exact same opinions" as our Instructors or Seniors, on everything.   LOL :rofl:  If that were the case I think you would be guilty as charged..... hee hee.

Mr. LaBounty understands my position and agrees with me and my point of view (we just talked last night about this very topic),  but we also agree that some may not share the same focus.  So there is no right or wrong but rather what you feel is good for you to follow.  

If you do or don't doesn't make you a bad person or Kenpoist but rather just defines different training methods.  

So merit is not the issue.  There is merit however you choose to choose to practice.

:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth

I find that anytime I practice is not a waste of my time.:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

Mr. Farnsworth,
   Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter what you practice, as long as you practice? What if you spend five years practicing to punch wrong. Is that time well spent? If we were talking about pitching baseball you would understand that some college pitchers never make it to the minor leages because their method of throwing caused them permenant injury. Strikes off the back hand are the same thing. If you arent punchig properly you build scar tissue, sit in a chair with a beer, and talk about how tough you used to be.


----------



## Goldendragon7

> _Origin. posted by Touch'O'Death_*
> Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter what you practice, as long as you practice?
> *



T-O-D.... You bring up a good point.  Just running through movements with out purpose or a watchful eye can be leading to bad habits.  However, I don't think that's what Jason was talking about.  

On another note, if you are practicing incorrectly  and your intent is "just" physical exercise then it really doesn't matter what you do as long as you are not leading to injury.  Most however, want much more than "exercise", so like you point out it makes sense to be watchful of exactly what, how, & why you are doing what you are working on as well as have a good plan of action that will lead to a multitude of benefits.

:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Mr. Farnsworth,   *



Yes; and sorry I didn't see this until now.



> Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter what you practice, as long as you practice?



No, not at all. I find practicing both sides enlightning and sometimes kind of tough. However my feeling on this subject is to become more well rounded (me personally) kenpoist with getting a better understanding of position recognition. Sure there's repetition by performing both sides but after all what do I have but time right?



> What if you spend five years practicing to punch wrong. Is that time well spent?



Probably not. As long as an individual has a good understanding of basics and concepts then there should be no problems with training your punches. If taught properly from the beginning that is.



> If we were talking about pitching baseball you would understand that some college pitchers never make it to the minor leages because their method of throwing caused them permenant injury.



OK, I'll buy that but let me warn you that I personally don't get involved in baseball whatsoever.



> If you arent punchig properly you build scar tissue



OK



> sit in a chair with a beer,



I don't like beer. 



> talk about how tough you used to be.



Unfortunately you won't hear me ever say anything about being tough (past, present, or future), that's not my style. 

I hope that answered your questions.:asian:



> Posted by Goldendragon7
> Just running through movements with out purpose or a watchful eye can be leading to bad habits. However, I don't think that's what Jason was talking about.



 You know me too well.


----------



## clapping_tiger

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> I don't like beer.



.....and you claim to be from the Midwest 
I thought we all loved beer?


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like beer. [/B]





  Now where did you say you were from comrad.


----------



## jfarnsworth

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Now where did you say you were from comrad. *



Ohio my friend :asian: . Where we sip on fine vodka.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Let me share with you, what Mr. Parker shared with me.  This explanation is abbreviated, because Mr. Parker and I discussed this topic for about 45 minutes . . . actually I brought it up and Mr. Parker discussed it for 45 minutes.  



I had just returned from a visiting a, very good, studio that taught Ed Parkers Kenpo, in the southwestern area of the US.  While I was there they really emphasized the left side of the techniques, because, they said, Mr. Parker said to.  Myself, I felt they were over emphasizing the left side of the techniques.



During my next lesson with Mr. Parker I told him what I had seen. His quote was, I wish everyone would quit carving everything I say in stone.  He then told me while he was visiting this studio, he had asked to see the techniques on the left side.  He did not tell them he wanted all techniques done equally right and left sided.  Mr. Parker said it was frustrating that he would visit a studio, ask to see something unique, or different, then come back ten years later to discover what he had asked to see, had become the cornerstone of their training.



Then I asked him what his stand was, on left side training.  This is what he told me.  The value of doing a technique on the left side is in that the left side (of a technique) is weaker than the right side.  This forces you to do the technique more correctly, in that you cant muscle your way through it.  He said too many people rely on speed and power to pull-off a technique (on the right side), but when you work the left side it forces you to slow down and apply the principles of Kenpo, in order to make it work. 



He said to take what you learn from doing the technique on the left side and apply it to the right side, in order to further enhance your strong side. (As the result of an improved application of the Kenpo principles)



Note:  An earlier post mentioned that left-side techniques were better for left handed people anyway, but my ex-wife, Barbara Hale, is left handed by day and totally right handed by night (on the mat).  You just dont train with Larry Tatum and Ed Parker for twenty years and come out the way you came in.


----------



## marlon

Has anyone worked on pulling off the techniques righty agaist an left handed attack?  You can find some interedsting things...


Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## dubljay

marlon said:
			
		

> Has anyone worked on pulling off the techniques righty agaist an left handed attack? You can find some interedsting things...
> 
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 As my instructor says:  "What works on the inside of a right works on the outside of a left, and vice versa".

 The body mechanics should not change much if any at all, targets and weapons used may change.


----------



## Kenpo-Sloth

Hi,
    I'm a novice (orange belt) and want to add a my perspective to this discussion.
 When you start training, everything seems to be geared to the right handed person. If you do something on the left side, it's only after you have already completed it on the right side. 
    A new left handed student finds it temporarily frustrating, however this same student should see the advantages of being left handed later on when you do techniques, forms, etc.. on both sides.
 IMHO, a left handed student (such as myself) has a definite advantage over the "Right Side Dominant" student who sees no reason to do anything on the left side. I assume that my Left or Right side can do equal damage to an attacker, so shouldn't we train them equally?? :idunno:
 I like Beer!! :cheers:


----------



## Doc

Hefeweizen said:
			
		

> Does anyone out there practice techniques on both sides?  For instance, Five Swords is intended for a right hand punch, but you could learn it for the left side as well.  I'm only a yellow belt and I've started learning my favorites on both sides, but I'm curious if others practice some or all of them from both sides.
> 
> Thanks
> Aaron


Sorry to be a wet blanket, but although the commercial sytem often touted "doing techniques mirror image," the system is a right handed system that utilizes a persons strengths on both sides in different ways, much like the classical arts it springs from. The commercial art also pushed "extensions" of tchniques as well. Busy work to keep people moving. Not all bad, but not the best either.


----------



## Seabrook

Doc said:
			
		

> The commercial art also pushed "extensions" of tchniques as well. Busy work to keep people moving. Not all bad, but not the best either.


Doc...what are you saying here? (grin)

I used to think the way you did, until I started realizing that the extensions are really techniques onto themselves, and give the Kenpoist and better understanding of how to utilize upper body principles to the lower case (ie. more leg buckles, sweeps, ect, in the extensions).

How do you define busy work? Which sets would you define as busy work and why? Just asking....


Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Doc

Seabrook said:
			
		

> Doc...what are you saying here? (grin)
> 
> I used to think the way you did, until I started realizing that the extensions are really techniques onto themselves, and give the Kenpoist and better understanding of how to utilize upper body principles to the lower case (ie. more leg buckles, sweeps, ect, in the extensions).
> 
> How do you define busy work? Which sets would you define as busy work and why? Just asking....
> 
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.


----------



## Casey_Sutherland

Doc said:
			
		

> Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.


Without stepping on any toes, who created certain sets aside from Mr. Parker? Just for curiosty's sake


----------



## Doc

Casey_Sutherland said:
			
		

> Without stepping on any toes, who created certain sets aside from Mr. Parker? Just for curiosty's sake


Since when can you discuss the commercial kenpo without stepping on toes somewhere? A great deal of the "2" sets were created to flesh out the business material by Jim Mitchell. You can also either blame him or thank him for a lot of the extensions.

And no we don't do them in SubLevel Four Kenpo.  Never had, never will.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

Doc said:
			
		

> Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.


 
Useless to you, have you ever learned the extensions, all of them?     I'd like to know where you see similar motion from the extension to Thrusting Salute, it only happnes once in the system in that extension.    Let's take a look at Flashing Wing's extension, you haven't seen that one yet in the previous curriculum.   I could make a list of things that don't happen in the techs that do appear in the extensions, and not the new ones that have been floating around.      Seems to me, Mr. Parker wouldn't endorce anything he didn't find valuable to the common student.     And that old argument of more material through black to keep the franchise bringing in the bucks things doesn't work.


----------



## kenpo3631

> Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat





> Since when can you discuss the commercial kenpo without stepping on toes somewhere? A great deal of the "2" sets were created to flesh out the business material by Jim Mitchell. You can also either blame him or thank him for a lot of the extensions.



Thank you Doc! I discussed this same thing and was told nearly vebatim by my current instructor the same things about the extensions & sets. Your replies only re-affirm my belief in my instructor. Thank you!

To see more on what Doc is saying take a look at this link. 

Original System article


----------



## Doc

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> Thank you Doc! I discussed this same thing and was told nearly vebatim by my current instructor the same things about the extensions & sets. Your replies only re-affirm my belief in my instructor. Thank you!
> 
> To see more on what Doc is saying take a look at this link.
> 
> Original System article


Wow, that was very well written and touched on quite a few issues. Maybe I'm not crazy afterall.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

Doc said:
			
		

> Usless information that should have already been covered in previous lessons of the base techniques. Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story. Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker. Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an anatomically based interpretation as I teach. There's tons of information to digest without, from our perspective "useless motion." One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat.


Ok, so let me ask another question, did Mr. Parker tell you the 2nd sets and extensions were useless?    If he did, did he tell anyone else?

DarK LorD


----------



## kenpo3631

First let me preface this by stating that I have not personally met either Doc or DarK Kenpo LorD, however from reading their post the I can say with some assurance that they are both staunch advocates and proponents of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System. This post is not intended to defend any one point of view over that of another, it is just my observations of the written word and my own interpretation.



> Few of the extensions have any anatomical efficacy and in fact some create the reverse effect of destroying your own structural integrity through contradictory body mechanics. However that being said, if YOU find value in them, thats another story.



DarK Kenpo LorD, it looks pretty clear that although Doc doesn't feel strongly about the extensions, he does not boo hoo your beliefs and actually states if YOU find value then by all means soak it up.



> Would you be surprised to find out that Parker didn't even create most of them? You can also throw out most of the "2" sets as well for the same reason, also created by someone else, and not Parker.



DKL, I have heard this from more than one of the "Seniors" & 1st Generation students of Mr. Parker. You can take a look here...Original System It's is unique that Mr. Parker was actually chronicled about this.



> Now some "motion geniuses" (GD-7) can pull some interesting lessons out of them, but they have no basis for existence in an *anatomically based interpretation as I teach*. There's tons of information to digest without, _from our perspective _ "useless motion."



It looks again as if Doc is not boo hoo'ing your beliefs, just stating the HE and HIS students don't find the value in many of the extensions and #2 sets for the way HE teaches Kenpo.



> One lesson will prove that to you in a hearbeat



DKL, you have the fortune of living in the state that is the Mecca of Kenpo. Why don't you take him up on his offer?


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> First let me preface this by stating that I have not personally met either Doc or DarK Kenpo LorD, however from reading their post the I can say with some assurance that they are both staunch advocates and proponents of the Ed Parker American Kenpo System. This post is not intended to defend any one point of view over that of another, it is just my observations of the written word and my own interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> DarK Kenpo LorD, it looks pretty clear that although Doc doesn't feel strongly about the extensions, he does not boo hoo your beliefs and actually states if YOU find value then by all means soak it up.
> 
> 
> 
> DKL, I have heard this from more than one of the "Seniors" & 1st Generation students of Mr. Parker. You can take a look here...Original System It's is unique that Mr. Parker was actually chronicled about this.
> 
> 
> 
> It looks again as if Doc is not boo hoo'ing your beliefs, just stating the HE and HIS students don't find the value in many of the extensions and #2 sets for the way HE teaches Kenpo.
> 
> 
> 
> DKL, you have the fortune of living in the state that is the Mecca of Kenpo. Why don't you take him up on his offer?


OK, same question to you.   Did Mr. Parker tell YOU the 2nd sets and extensions were useless?


As far as taking him on the offer, I did, to his objections that I not be present for his seminar.    I showed up anyway unbeknownst to the promoter.     I walked away with more knowledge than you can imagine, and have used the principles in reverse to test them.    The power of suggestion is a strong tool.

DarK LorD


----------



## kenpo3631

> OK, same question to you. Did Mr. Parker tell YOU the 2nd sets and extensions were useless?



Mr. Parker did not tell me anything. However I never saw Mr. Parker ever do any of the #2 Sets (nor has "Senior" or 1st generation students I have spoken with) & as in the article I linked in my previous post, I saw Mr. Parker expound on these sets as described in the article.

I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.


----------



## Doc

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> Mr. Parker did not tell me anything. However I never saw Mr. Parker ever do any of the #2 Sets (nor has "Senior" or 1st generation students I have spoken with) & as in the article I linked in my previous post, I saw Mr. Parker expound on these sets as described in the article.
> 
> I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.



The singlemindedness of some people is mind boggling. Thank you for your reading comp skills. I thought I've said it fairly well many times. Its amazing how someone could read something and have it say exactly what they want it to say.

Anyway neither have I seen any of the "seniors" endorse OR teach them. Hell most don't even teach all of the others. And as for us "ancients" that are senior to all the seniors, most of us don't do any of that new fangled motion based stuff. 

Everything Parker allowed into his many sytems had some validty on some level at some time or it wouldn't be there. The value of anything depends on who, what, when, where, how, and most importantly "why?" As long as those questions are positively answered for the individual, then it doesn't matter. Some do and teach things I wouldn't dream of, and vice versa. I do my thing and share. You do your thing and share. Everyone will choose what they like. Most will choose the road of least resistance or most popular. No harm, no foul. If some people would spend as much time on their own knowledge and skill as they do monitoring others, everyone would be better off.


----------



## Seabrook

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> I have never been told by anyone they were useless, just repetitive and did not add to the system but repeated already taught principles.


One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets. Blocking Set 2, Kicking Set 2, Coordination Sets 1 and 2, Finger Set 2, Striking Set 2, and Stance Set 2 all apply here. The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination. 

IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion".

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

DKL:

You are right. The power of suggestion is, indeed strong. It is used to build expectations which are then validated in the environment by the subjective observer: In other words, we see what we expect to see, so suggestion is a way of priming expectation.

Were you able to approach your SL4 experience without your own expectations influencing your perception, and therefore experience?

In my own experience, my ability to appreciate what Doc does unfolds in layers. Most of what he says, the first time I hear it, seems a little far fetched. But -- to the best of my ability -- I suspend judgement to see if the experience or idea has any warrant in and of itself. I then go to other training arenas (folks who have never heard of Doc, SL4, and in many cases, kenpo...i.e., a rugby game or mosh pit) and try it on the unsuspecting masses. Depending on my experience there, I have a tendency to return to Doc's with an interest in hearing (actually HEARING) the next layer deep in the ideas he's been working on of late. 

Even then, there is much he talks about and explores that I don't get. Language he expresses that might as well be Greek, as I don't have the capacity, groundwork, or experiential understandings necessary to interpret the words to meaning (it's my own darned fault; I'm only out there once in a while).

As for the power of suggestion...heavy bags and human bones are not vulnerable to expectation. I can demonstrate for you, in 5 minutes, in a way that you can/will experience with your own body, that many of Doc's principles of anatomical alignment produce solid, immediate, reproducible results. I guarantee that -- throwing backnuckles on a heavy bag -- there will be undeniable results visible to all observing, and noticably different for the person throwing the backfist (a magnitude increase in the sheer force & penetration generated in a blow, while actually putting less physical effort into it...albeit, more thought).  Been using some of these in rather aggressive sparring recently, to get used to throwing them down in a clash (as opposed to partner drills on the mat...an environment in which it is admittedly too easy to simply buy in to, and repeatedly reinforce, suggestion); my little team of training partners and I are all hobbling around with deep joint injuries, healing ribs, etc., and the only thing we changed are how we align ourselves prior to and/or during the delivery of basics. Basics, revisited with different principles (anatomical alignment). Just basics.

The take-away lesson is that small changes in "performance approach" make a huge difference in outcome. And this, with only basics. Some combinations of movements in the vocabulary of motion lend themselves poorly to the corrective mechanisms that shore up and strengthen the basics to take them to the next level (anatomical alignment). Hence, from an alignment perspective, they would make for lousy training material. 

I have fun with the extensions...as a kenpo addict, I still enjoy ripping off some bunch of movements at high speed/high intensity, and personally feel it's an excellent exercise in flow and for developing speed. I'm now also aware that, in so doing, I'm falling back on old habits that detract from the quality of the individual movements embedded within the sequence (is that backnuckle really being delivered as hard and as fast as it can, with total body integrity intact?).

The extensions are not wrong or evil; heck, they're fun and a great workout to burn through. From an SL4 perspective, many require compromising the very foundation-building principles necessary to take skill and energy to the next phase. And I'm still not entirely sure you've given SL4 an unbiased shake (just my opinion).

Regards to all,

Dave


----------



## kenpo3631

Mr. Seabrook you stated in your last post...



> One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets



I partially agree with you here, however if you wanted you could use the Equation Formula to alter Kicking Set #1 by prefixing or suffixing hand strikes _or_ Stance Set #1 by having the student use complimentary angles with thier hands instead of having them place thier hand upon thier hips, heck why not just do plain ole' step through foot maneuvers while executing various hand strikes or kicks, you'd essentially achieve the same result. Better yet teach them the forms.



> The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination.



I thought you learned that stuff within the self defense techniques & forms? I know I did.  I heard Mr. Parker state once that "Sets are nothing more than mental masturbation." If anyone wanted they could make a Stance Set #3, Finger Set #3,why not an Elbow Set #1 or Rolls & Falls Set #1. Quite honestly I am surprised somebody isn't out there trying to pass it off already. I feel Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to practice their basics than by requiring them to learn sets, the "appendices of motion"? 



> IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion"



If it is taught in the techniques and forms then what would you call it then?


----------



## Doc

Seabrook said:
			
		

> One of the main differences between the #2 versions of the sets compared to the first of them is that the second sets involve more transitions and movements across the floor in conjunction with the hands, unlike the Star Block Set, Finger Set, and Striking Set where a student is to remain in a stationary horse stance throughout the sets. Blocking Set 2, Kicking Set 2, Coordination Sets 1 and 2, Finger Set 2, Striking Set 2, and Stance Set 2 all apply here. The movement and footwork used in these second sets also allows for a better understanding of angles, contact, and outer rim domination.
> 
> IMO - I wouldn't call this "repetitive motion".
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


Well sir, in many ways it is repetitive to take a set and then add footwork you presumably already know. Then maybe I'm more than a bit biased because I know the source and how they came about. At any rate, any materials usefulness or lack of, depends on your point of view. One's man junk is another's treasure. As long as a person finds value then who's to say its not?


----------



## kenpo3631

> At any rate, any materials usefulness or lack of, depends on your point of view. One's man junk is another's treasure. As long as a person finds value then who's to say its not?



Doc thanks again. I believe in your statement.


----------



## Seabrook

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> Mr. Seabrook you stated in your last post...
> 
> I partially agree with you here, however if you wanted you could use the Equation Formula to alter Kicking Set #1 by prefixing or suffixing hand strikes _or_ Stance Set #1 by having the student use complimentary angles with thier hands instead of having them place thier hand upon thier hips, heck why not just do plain ole' step through foot maneuvers while executing various hand strikes or kicks, you'd essentially achieve the same result. Better yet teach them the forms.
> 
> I thought you learned that stuff within the self defense techniques & forms? I know I did. I heard Mr. Parker state once that "Sets are nothing more than mental masturbation." If anyone wanted they could make a Stance Set #3, Finger Set #3,why not an Elbow Set #1 or Rolls & Falls Set #1. Quite honestly I am surprised somebody isn't out there trying to pass it off already. I feel Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to practice their basics than by requiring them to learn sets, the "appendices of motion"?
> 
> 
> If it is taught in the techniques and forms then what would you call it then?


If Ed Parker didn't want the 2nd sets (or the 1st for that matter) to be taught as part of his American Kenpo curriculum, then why are they included as requirements? Please don't say for marketing purposes or just to give people what they want. 

Also what in the world is "busy work" anyway? I here those words all of the time.  If the argument is that it is material that really has little benefit to a Kenpo practitioner, I couldn't disagree more. The extensions, for example, provide a "what-if" to us should the ideal phase go wrong. There are also many fighting applications to the sets.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## MJS

Seabrook said:
			
		

> If Ed Parker didn't want the 2nd sets (or the 1st for that matter) to be taught as part of his American Kenpo curriculum, then why are they included as requirements? Please don't say for marketing purposes or just to give people what they want.
> 
> Also what in the world is "busy work" anyway? I here those words all of the time.  If the argument is that it is material that really has little benefit to a Kenpo practitioner, I couldn't disagree more. The extensions, for example, provide a "what-if" to us should the ideal phase go wrong. There are also many fighting applications to the sets.
> 
> Jamie Seabrook
> www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com



You're right, I hear those words as well.  The ext. are of a value for the reasons that you mentioned.  If someone does not find use for them, I guess thats their choice, but they (students) should not be discouraged from doing them just because someone else may not find value in them.

Mike


----------



## kenpo3631

> If Ed Parker didn't want the 2nd sets (or the 1st for that matter) to be taught as part of his American Kenpo curriculum, then why are they included as requirements?



If you read my previous post I stated in my reply...



> if you wanted you could use the Equation Formula to alter Kicking Set #1 by prefixing or suffixing hand strikes or Stance Set #1 by having the student use complimentary angles with thier hands instead of having them place thier hand upon thier hips, heck why not just do plain ole' step through foot maneuvers while executing various hand strikes or kicks, you'd essentially achieve the same result



I agree the #1 Sets have value & will continue to stick with my belief that Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to *practice their basics * than by requiring them to learn sets.



> Please don't say for marketing purposes or just to give people what they want.



Why is this theory so hard to swallow for people? It has been posted on this forum numerous times, and I have heard it from talking to "Seniors" & 1st Generation students that the Yellow Belt material evolved as a "Beginners Course", why is it that the belt requirements were chopped from 32 per belt to 24 and even 16? Were the examples I've given not done for commercial reasons? Was Mr. Parker not an business man selling the Art of Kenpo Karate? I never implied that Mr. Parker allowed the #2 Sets in to his system to as you put _"to give people what they want"_ I feel he would never do that, but rather as a way for students to highlight and practice thier basics.



> If the argument is that it is material that really has little benefit to a Kenpo practitioner, I couldn't disagree more.



It is my belief that you get out of it what you put into it. I know the extensions and I also teach them and yes some of the stuff adds information into the system. As far as I know in the first teaching manuals, American Kenpo was divided into four belt groups: Orange Belt, Purple Belt, Blue Belt, and Green Belt. Each of these groups were comprised of a number of basics, forms and/or sets, and 32 self-defense techniques (thus the term: "32-Technique System"). In addition to these four groups, Mr. Parker used a Green-Orange group which consisted of adding extensions to each of his 32 Orange Belt techniques. That is, in the original system compiled by Mr. Parker, there were only extensions for his Orange Belt techniques. If you apply this to the 24 Technique layout it covers the 24 Orange Techniques & the first 8 Purple Belt Techniques. 

I have also been told in discussions that in time the belt colors were expanded to: Yellow, Orange, Purple, Blue, Green, 3rd Brown, 2nd Brown, 1st Brown, and Black (with a total of ten degrees). To have enough material to teach within each of these new belt groups, the original 32-Technique System was divided into the 24-Technique System. To complete the number of techniques required by the belt groups _some of Mr. Parker's students pulled motion out of Forms 4, 5, and 6 and created techniques such as: Circling Windmills, Reversing Circles, and Circling The Storm. _ *Of note, these movements were not originally designated by Mr. Parker to be considered as techniques*. For example, Circling The Storm was created to complete a category of various checks that could be applied to hinges and joints of the body. When a student discovers this knowledge, the Circling The Storm motion can be run with equal effectiveness on the front or back of an opponent's body. As further evidence of this new interpretation of Mr. Parker's original motion, Circling The Storm does not follow his weapon protocol of "Divert, Seize, Control, and Disarm." In addition to new self-defense techniques, new forms and sets were also necessary to complete a teaching structure for the new system. As in the creation of the new techniques, _some of Mr. Parker's students compiled various sets such as the Striking Set, Stance Set, and Kicking Set. In time, each of these sets would come to have a #2 version (e.g., Blocking Set #2). Since these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content_. 




> The extensions, for example, provide a "what-if" to us should the ideal phase go wrong. There are also many fighting applications to the sets.



My point is - There is *so * much to learn within the core of the system aside from the original "Orange-Green" extensions, many of the extensions only repeat what is already taught and add nothing new. If you learn the core system then most of the "what-if" counters are taught to you. I also believe in what Doc already posted...



> One's man junk is another's treasure. As long as a person finds value then who's to say its not?



If you find more value in the 2nd Sets and Extensions than by all means run with it. I can only say is that we seem to agree to disagree on the subject.


----------



## Doc

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> If you read my previous post I stated in my reply...
> 
> I agree the #1 Sets have value & will continue to stick with my belief that Mr. Parker knew most students do not enjoy working basics, what better way to get them to *practice their basics * than by requiring them to learn sets.
> 
> Why is this theory so hard to swallow for people? It has been posted on this forum numerous times, and I have heard it from talking to "Seniors" & 1st Generation students that the Yellow Belt material evolved as a "Beginners Course", why is it that the belt requirements were chopped from 32 per belt to 24 and even 16? Were the examples I've given not done for commercial reasons? Was Mr. Parker not an business man selling the Art of Kenpo Karate? I never implied that Mr. Parker allowed the #2 Sets in to his system to as you put _"to give people what they want"_ I feel he would never do that, but rather as a way for students to highlight and practice thier basics.
> 
> It is my belief that you get out of it what you put into it. I know the extensions and I also teach them and yes some of the stuff adds information into the system. As far as I know in the first teaching manuals, American Kenpo was divided into four belt groups: Orange Belt, Purple Belt, Blue Belt, and Green Belt. Each of these groups were comprised of a number of basics, forms and/or sets, and 32 self-defense techniques (thus the term: "32-Technique System"). In addition to these four groups, Mr. Parker used a Green-Orange group which consisted of adding extensions to each of his 32 Orange Belt techniques. That is, in the original system compiled by Mr. Parker, there were only extensions for his Orange Belt techniques. If you apply this to the 24 Technique layout it covers the 24 Orange Techniques & the first 8 Purple Belt Techniques.
> 
> I have also been told in discussions that in time the belt colors were expanded to: Yellow, Orange, Purple, Blue, Green, 3rd Brown, 2nd Brown, 1st Brown, and Black (with a total of ten degrees). To have enough material to teach within each of these new belt groups, the original 32-Technique System was divided into the 24-Technique System. To complete the number of techniques required by the belt groups _some of Mr. Parker's students pulled motion out of Forms 4, 5, and 6 and created techniques such as: Circling Windmills, Reversing Circles, and Circling The Storm. _ *Of note, these movements were not originally designated by Mr. Parker to be considered as techniques*. For example, Circling The Storm was created to complete a category of various checks that could be applied to hinges and joints of the body. When a student discovers this knowledge, the Circling The Storm motion can be run with equal effectiveness on the front or back of an opponent's body. As further evidence of this new interpretation of Mr. Parker's original motion, Circling The Storm does not follow his weapon protocol of "Divert, Seize, Control, and Disarm." In addition to new self-defense techniques, new forms and sets were also necessary to complete a teaching structure for the new system. As in the creation of the new techniques, _some of Mr. Parker's students compiled various sets such as the Striking Set, Stance Set, and Kicking Set. In time, each of these sets would come to have a #2 version (e.g., Blocking Set #2). Since these sets were not created by Mr. Parker, he was only minimally aware of their content_.


.
Very well stated sir. Mr. Parker knew the core of any system is its basics. He also knew it was the least attractive part of the "business" of teaching kenpo, and "packaged" product to keep least motivated students interested, and "around." I was there when the business kenpo most practice was born, and I also know why Parker made a significant shift to "making money" out of a personal necessity. It is also during this period Parker stopped teaching classes on a regular basis.

I also would remind some once again, that the 32 "technique curriculum" was the beginning of the commercial system, but not the genesis of Ed Parker's Kenpo nor what he personally practiced. Although he believed his business model served its purpose, and gave many what they needed, he always cautioned students "There is a lot to learn." and this was just the beginning of what should be a lifelong lesson of "continuing education." 

He also knew the majority of these students would come in and *maybe*get a belt, and move on to somethinge else and be completely satisfied with what they learned and the money they spent. He created the least demaning model he could, with the instructors responsible for the quality of the students, and the attrition rate was still through the roof. The majority of his students went to a certain level and stopped. 

Most never taught or produced student black belts of their own. Many in the business got lots of stripes but Parker always reminded them, "Just because the red show, don't mean that you know." I wonder who people thought he was talking about? Everyone laughed and thought he was talking about some other group. When asked about the business curriculum, he would always say, "How do you do it?" "If that works for you, than do that." 

He created this "tailoring concept" for the business knowing you can't tailor basics, but never assigned value to what students liked and wanted. Yes in many cases, he gave students exactly what they wanted, as any good businessman would do. But while doing so always told students, "There's always so much more." 

Yes the "Yellow" was created *after the fact* to retain students who were dropping out because it was taking too long to get promoted.  So, Parker made it "easier" to get that first promotion to keep students. Orange  came next, and Blue Belt came later. The first colored belt was purple to green then brown. Before that, you went from white to brown to black. That's why when other belts were added the 32 technique stopped essentially at green, with only the restored second half of the now "orange" techniques called "extensions" to get to brown, with no black belt material at all. 

He knew "kenpo-karate" was a "business" first and an "art" second, and that it was successful in what it was designed to do, and he never ripped anyone off. He also knew it for it was worth and he himself did not practice it because he was at a higher level. The depth of his knowledge was only conceptually represented in that model and his teachings, and it was contrary to how he himself was taught. He knew that all students would seek their own level, and that for 98% of them, it wouldn't be very high. Most only wanted belts and stripes, and once they got them, they moved on.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Dear Sloth,

Drop me a note somewhere around 2nd Brown and tell me if you are not indeed a "born again" right handed fighter.

A good friend of mine is left-handed, so I asked Mr. Parker why we are so right-hand dominate and he said we could change our art to work for the left handed defender, but he could do nothing about the right handed attacker.

In other words, the best defense for a right punch is still a right inward block, no matter if you are left, or right, handed.

Mr. Parker knew that most attackers (most people) are right handed, so our defenses are not based on most of us being right handed, but in that most attackers are right handed.

Now, is this carved in stone, and can you not find an exception to the rule?

Take care my friend, and when no one is expecting it . . . blast them with an awesome left.


----------



## TwistofFat

Mr. Hale,


Just to add my two cents.  I trained for years with a Chiropractor in Pittsburgh who was a lefty and he struggled with Kenpo until Green-ish.  After a few years of x-training hands, he is now one of the best fighters I know (I have a broken nose as evidence...).  Sloth - stick with it.

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## Kenpo-Sloth

:asian: Thanks!!
The more I train, the more my right and left strikes are becomming equal (equally bad of course :lol: ).
Mr. Hale, Sir, I've only been training for a year and a half, but I think your "right", after another 5 years or so, I'll be a right hander (finally I can get a baseball catcher's mit!! ).
Mr. Glenn, Sir, I'll stick with it, so far my biggest advantage has been sparring, I'm still kind of slow, but I'm at home on both sides and change up constantly.
Thanks for supporting us leftys in an "if your not right your wrong" world.


----------



## KenpoKidZ

I truly beleive it is important to train techniques on both sides provided you understand why your doing it.  

I have to go with Clyde on this one, most all kenpo systems are right side dominant for good reason...but there are around 100 or so out of 700 techniques that are done on the left side in most every kenpo system.

Training for being ambidextrous is just fine, just remember that you should want the power strike/strikes to come out of your dominant side.

I am left handed, well more so ambidextrous, but more powerful on my left.  I have always done my techniques as taught to me on the right side with no problem but retain the fact that I can flip the "tech" when needed.  I think that is one aspect that many kenpoists' neglect when they train.  Keep your power side dominant: but always have the option of flipping the technique when you need to.  Training both sides will prevent you from "locking up" if an attack occurs that presents problems for your dominant side.  I hope that makes sense.



Good Day

Zach Atkins


----------



## Doc

Kenpo is a "right handed" defense approach simply because the world is predominantly right handed. When training is based on body mechanics, instead of abstract motion, lefties have no problem with the information. I have several in class regularly and one is a police offcer. They have expereinced no more discomfort than any other beginner with our right handed sysytem. In fact, they had not given it a thought until I mentioned it to them.

Kenpo utilizes right and left hand defenses, however the brain is wired such that Mr. Parker understood that there is no true ambidexterity, and the idea is to be able to use both left and right side effectively, but they do not have to be used in the exact same way. A "Five Swords" type attack, and a "Shielding Hammer" attack are mirror images attacks, that both utilize defensively the right side. But "Attacking Mace" utilizes a defensive left for a right punch while "Reversing Mace" uses a defensive right. Taught properly the methodology is balanced correctly. Don't bog yourself down attempting to be ambidextrous, or performing techniques equally on both sides. Not only is it an impossibility, it is an inefficient use of very limited time to absorb voluminous amounts of information and skills. Concentrate on being effective to matter what an attacker throws at you. This is about self-defense, not a gymnastics routine unless busy work is your thing, or you don't have enough to learn so you need to "mirror" up everything.


----------



## Seabrook

Doc said:
			
		

> Don't bog yourself down attempting to be ambidextrous, or performing techniques equally on both sides. Not only is it an impossibility, it is an inefficient use of very limited time to absorb voluminous amounts of information and skills. Concentrate on being effective to matter what an attacker throws at you. This is about self-defense, not a gymnastics routine unless busy work is your thing, or you don't have enough to learn so you need to "mirror" up everything.


Agreed 100%. 

Well stated Mr. Chapel.

Jamie Seabrook
www.seabrook.gotkenpo.com


----------



## MJS

Reviving this thread for our newer members.

Mike


----------



## MJS

Any more thoughts on this??  I realize that in the forms, we address the left side but IMO, I think it would be a good idea to take a few of the techniques that we have that only address the right side and train them on the left.  

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane

personally, I do practice techniques on both sides.  I understand that true ambidextrous may be impossible, but I think it is a good idea to practice both sides for a couple of reasons.

The first is that you never know when or if your dominant side might be taken out of action for some reason.  This could be due to an injury either prior to a conflict, or during the conflict.  This could force you to have to fight with your weaker side.

Your strong side could be taken out of use due to positioning, especially if you are caught by surprise.  It may be impossible to bring your strong side into the fight quickly enough to be useful.  In these cases, I think it is good to have developed some muscle memory and some skill with the techniques on the weaker side.  Understandably your skill on the weak side will probably never match your skill on the strong side, but I think it makes sense to develop this skill nevertheless.

Another reason to practice both sides can have to do with physical anatomy.  If you exercise excessively on one side of the body and don't match it on the other, you can develop unevenly.  In extreme cases this can lead to spinal problems and can be debilitating.  While this is more prevalent in practices like bodybuilding where there is a focused attempt to alter the shape and size of the body, it can manifest in other forms of exercise as well.  For example, tennis players can develop unevenly due to always playing with the racket in the same hand.  My chiropractor sees this kind of problem often enough to take notice.  He even notices this in people in the business world who always carry their briefcase in the same hand.  Without some other form of exercise, over time, this can be enough to develop problems.  He always told me that I had even physical development and he felt it was due to my training in the martial arts.

An extreme example of this is Quazimoto from the Hunchback of Notre Dame.  The character of Quazimoto was a Welsh Bowman.  The Welsh Longbow (which became the English Longbow) had a draw weight of 100# to 150#.  A bowman was a professional soldier who practiced daily with his longbow, but of course they always shot with the same side.  Over time, the muscles in the shoulder, back and arm become severely overdeveloped on one side, leading to a hunched back.  While Quazimoto of course was not a real person, his character was given a real profession and his physical attributes reflected that profession.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> personally, I do practice techniques on both sides.  I understand that true ambidextrous may be impossible, but I think it is a good idea to practice both sides for a couple of reasons.
> 
> The first is that you never know when or if your dominant side might be taken out of action for some reason.  This could be due to an injury either prior to a conflict, or during the conflict.  This could force you to have to fight with your weaker side.
> 
> Your strong side could be taken out of use due to positioning, especially if you are caught by surprise.  It may be impossible to bring your strong side into the fight quickly enough to be useful.  In these cases, I think it is good to have developed some muscle memory and some skill with the techniques on the weaker side.  Understandably your skill on the weak side will probably never match your skill on the strong side, but I think it makes sense to develop this skill nevertheless.
> 
> Another reason to practice both sides can have to do with physical anatomy.  If you exercise excessively on one side of the body and don't match it on the other, you can develop unevenly.  In extreme cases this can lead to spinal problems and can be debilitating.  While this is more prevalent in practices like bodybuilding where there is a focused attempt to alter the shape and size of the body, it can manifest in other forms of exercise as well.  For example, tennis players can develop unevenly due to always playing with the racket in the same hand.  My chiropractor sees this kind of problem often enough to take notice.  He even notices this in people in the business world who always carry their briefcase in the same hand.  Without some other form of exercise, over time, this can be enough to develop problems.  He always told me that I had even physical development and he felt it was due to my training in the martial arts.
> 
> An extreme example of this is Quazimoto from the Hunchback of Notre Dame.  The character of Quazimoto was a Welsh Bowman.  The Welsh Longbow (which became the English Longbow) had a draw weight of 100# to 150#.  A bowman was a professional soldier who practiced daily with his longbow, but of course they always shot with the same side.  Over time, the muscles in the shoulder, back and arm become severely overdeveloped on one side, leading to a hunched back.  While Quazimoto of course was not a real person, his character was given a real profession and his physical attributes reflected that profession.


Clearly sir, you did not read my previous post. All of the negatives you suggest are negated in the system WITHOUT mirror image training of individual techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:
			
		

> Clearly sir, you did not read my previous post. All of the negatives you suggest are negated in the system WITHOUT mirror image training of individual techniques.


 
Actually, I did read your previous post.  Unfortunately, since the kenpo I practice is Tracy based, I am unable to follow your examples.  I am unfamiliar with the names of the techniques you list, and don't know how they may be the same as, or differ from, what I practice.  Unfortunately for me, this removes much of what I might have been able to get from what you have stated. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I definitely agree with the points you make about the impossibility of complete ambidextrousness (is that a real word?).  I also agree with your point about using both hands, but they aren't necessarily used in the same way.  I agree that focus should be on the dominant side as this will always be the most effective side.  However, for my reasons stated above, I maintain that it is worthwhile to spend some time training techniques on the weak side.  Just my opinion, but I will agree to disagree.


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Actually, I did read your previous post.  Unfortunately, since the kenpo I practice is Tracy based, I am unable to follow your examples.  I am unfamiliar with the names of the techniques you list, and don't know how they may be the same as, or differ from, what I practice.  Unfortunately for me, this removes much of what I might have been able to get from what you have stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with the points you make about the impossibility of complete ambidextrousness (is that a real word?).  I also agree with your point about using both hands, but they aren't necessarily used in the same way.  I agree that focus should be on the dominant side as this will always be the most effective side.  However, for my reasons stated above, I maintain that it is worthwhile to spend some time training techniques on the weak side.  Just my opinion, but I will agree to disagree.


Duly noted sir, and yes, that is a real word.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Actually, I did read your previous post. Unfortunately, since the kenpo I practice is Tracy based, I am unable to follow your examples. I am unfamiliar with the names of the techniques you list, and don't know how they may be the same as, or differ from, what I practice. Unfortunately for me, this removes much of what I might have been able to get from what you have stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with the points you make about the impossibility of complete ambidextrousness (is that a real word?). I also agree with your point about using both hands, but they aren't necessarily used in the same way. I agree that focus should be on the dominant side as this will always be the most effective side. However, for my reasons stated above, I maintain that it is worthwhile to spend some time training techniques on the weak side. Just my opinion, but I will agree to disagree.


 
To opt to practice all on the opposite side may rob you of time, and  of seeing more of your art from the dominant side perspective.

And though ambidextrousness is a word, the preferred is ambidexterity.

DarK LorD


----------



## Flying Crane

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> And though ambidextrousness is a word, the preferred is ambidexterity.
> DarK LorD


 
aahhh, ambidexterity.  _That's_ the word I was looking for!


----------



## Flying Crane

kenpo3631 said:
			
		

> I have also been told in discussions that in time the belt colors were expanded to: Yellow, Orange, Purple, Blue, Green, 3rd Brown, 2nd Brown, 1st Brown, and Black (with a total of ten degrees). To have enough material to teach within each of these new belt groups, the original 32-Technique System was divided into the 24-Technique System. To complete the number of techniques required by the belt groups _some of Mr. Parker's students pulled motion out of Forms 4, 5, and 6 and created techniques such as: Circling Windmills, Reversing Circles, and Circling The Storm. _*Of note, these movements were not originally designated by Mr. Parker to be considered as techniques*.


 
I may be misunderstanding what is being said here, so I am asking for some clarification.

When a kata is created, it is made up of techniques that already exist.  The movement is useful and has meaning, and is put within the context of a kata as a way of cataloguing the information.  The above statements indicate to me that the opposite is true, and that these kata were created from random movement, and people later devised useful applications for the movement.  I don't think this is even possible.

Whether or not someone _learning_ a form understands the movement is a different story.  I can't believe the _creator_ of a form would not understand the application of the movements, however.

I know forms 4 and 5, but not 6, 7, or 8.  I do know that forms 4 and 5, as well as short and long 3, were created from techniques that already existed.  I believe short and long 2 were as well, but perhaps not as systematically as the others.  Also, if you look at those techniques, the movements are way too specific and precise for me to believe that they were once just randomly put together without understanding what they were for.  Clearly the movement had meaning, and was included in the forms for that very reason.  I don't think it would even be possible to create a worthwhile form from purely random movement, as the above statements seem to imply.

If I have misunderstood what was said, please help me with some clarification.


----------

