# Short Form 2



## WilliamTLear (Apr 17, 2002)

Warriorsage,

I used to study under Frank Trejo until a few months ago, and his explanation of the middle knuckle strike (which you are referencing) completely coincides with what you wrote. Although I train under Bryan Hawkins now, I haven't really asked him but I think I will pose the question to him when I get the chance tomorrow.

Hope this helps,
Billy Lear

P.S. I'll write Mr. Hawkins' reply to you as soon as I get the chance. (He was one of Mr. Parker's more prominent students in the later years and might have some interesting insight.)


----------



## GouRonin (Apr 18, 2002)

I have to say that I am doing Obscure Wing wrong then. I like to step into my opponent. If I step to 3:00 then my back up mass is going that way into my stance. Why would I send my weapon to 6:00 in a direction that isn't in harmony with my weight?

You're a big guy so maybe you can get away with that because of those huge pythons but me, I need all the force I can get. I want to use what little weight I have to fold that guy in half with my first strike. So I go into him. (We'll say he's standing at my 4:30)

Huk was pointing out that Shotokan guys tend to punch in one direction while sending their body weight in another direction. Or like in tournament punches, you can score while backing up but on the street if you punch while backing up you won't get much so I adapted this concept for this technique.

As usual, I'm doing it wrong. But I don't care! Ah ha ha ha!


----------



## GouRonin (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> *Gou, Gou, Gou.... Always the one making light of things*



I always say if it's to serious to laugh at then it's not serious at all.

But in all reality I see what you are saying. There is a purpose for it. A guy like you needs to know that purpose because you need to be able to pass the system/art on.

Huk once told me that I will 2 styles of Kenpo. 1) The way the Old Man wanted it done so that it can be passed on. 2) My way that is tailored to me so I can use it.



> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> *It IS cursed....*



Eeep! Can't fight the curse!


----------



## WilliamTLear (Apr 19, 2002)

Stepping to three o'clock is *NOT* the way that I was taught this technique, and I have to say that the way that I do it has been reinforced by several senior black belts under Mr. Parker... Here... let me name a few...

Bryan Hawkins
Frank Trejo
Dennis Conatser
Diane Tanaka
Larry Tatum
Gilbert Velez
Paul Mills
and Rainer Schulte

The step is to 4:30, and that is not just for power, but for stability in your stance. If you step to 3:00 with your left then you momentarily sacrifice a strong stance and end up leaving your self vulnerable to being pulled/pushed off balance.

REMEMBER: The guy is choking you from behind... If he has an applied grab don't you think he might decide to push and pull to destabalize you? 

The understanding of this technique (among "ALL" of the others) is not totally gauged by the power in which you can strike your opponent, but also protecting your self from further impending danger (intentional or not).

4:30 is the way it is written, it is the way I have seen Mr. Parker teach it on video (I used to archive videos of Mr. Parker for his son). The video in question was one in which Mr. Parker was demonstrating on Bryan Hawkins, and it was spectacular to watch!!! (Unfortunately nobody but Edmund has a copy, and he wont let them out of his sight! Although, he might use the footage in an up comming video series he is in the middle of producing.)

MY SUGGESTION IS THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING HAVE SOMEONE GIVE YOU THE MOST REALISTIC ATTACK POSSIBLE AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT BOTH YOUR WAY AND TOWARD 4:30...

IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK 100% OF THE TIME BY STEPPING TO 3:00 THEN YOU ARE A BETTER MAN THAN ME.

Respectfully,
Billy Lear 

P.S. this technique also has some environmental considerations that it accounts for. Just something for you to chew on. Take Care. :asian:


----------



## warriorsage (Apr 15, 2002)

I've read on a few websites and forums that the downward raking middle knuckle (with the wide kneel) in short two is incorrect AND that is was designed purposely that way by Mr. Parker to see if his students were actively investigating the forms. I don't personally like the strike, or atleast haven't been taught to use it properly, but I thought that was my shortcoming. I would find it odd if Mr. Parker actually designed things incorrectly on purpose, despite the logic behind it.

I was wondering if anyone else had heard this, or if some of the seniors would care to throw their $.02 in (HINT: that means you Mr. C).


----------



## warriorsage (Apr 18, 2002)

Thanks for the info guys. Mr. C, I think I undestand what you were saying, but the part that was specifically pointed out as being flawed was the raking downward middle knuckle. It ws pointed out (by someone on KenpoNet) that the middle knuckle is not structurally sound when used in this fashion. Any thoughts?

Also, in regard to Dan Farmers post: I've read MANY times that SGM Parker taught several things that weren't correct, or better stated, weren't optimally functional, to check if his students were doing any personal exploration of the material. I heard it was also done to see who the students were training under. Now, these are just things I've heard and read, but they have come from some people close to the source. I think Ed Jr even mentioned something about this either in The Journey or in the BlackBelt magazine ad from a year or so back.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Rainman (Apr 16, 2002)

There is some very cool stuff in short  form 2.  One principle it highlights is centrifugal force.  From the outward block punch combo facing 3 o'clock rear cross to 4:30 and use your feet to unwind into your wide kneel.  Your hands/arms are in the shape of a 90 degree angle in front of your chest with the corner formed in front of your rt pectoral muscle.   At the point were max torque is achieved your hands should be striking in the form of a  rt. middle knuckle and lt. upward "block".   That is just one of the things that can make that movement more fun.  Also realize that each movement has more than one application.

:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Apr 17, 2002)

I was taught  that it shows the principle of torque. The first three sets of movement in the form show, (amongst other things), how to use the three power priciples.

 1. Five Swords = Back Up Mass, 2. Block and punch to 3 & 9 = Torque, and 3. Wide kneel, upward block, middle knuckle = Marriage with Gravity.

That's great if you are an orange belt because it is very basic and easy to understand.  There are no primary power generators unless you are using that as a teaching tool to be later expanded upon.  Back up mass, torque, and gravitational marriage work simultaneously in all three of the combinations you listed.   Upon impact is where they are felt along with breath and projection the culmination of which is deemed focus.

Centrifugal force is good to look at from the ram (second tek) on because it aids in keeping the arms relaxed and aids in the whip that can be included if one decides to keep the movements in the form continueus.    


 :asian:


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2002)

3631,

Obscure Wing.  Are you making contact with your elbow or your whole body?  Think about adding directional harmony body momentum, and gravitational marriage on the first strike.   Additionally look at book V page 105 under the power section.   As Obcure Wing is a combination of basic moves Power works the same way... by combination.



:asian:


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2002)

Even if you step to 3 your forearm and hand are behind the elbow strike and that is still considered back up mass.   Your understanding is not wrong but, expand your usage so you are doing many things at once.    Empty your cup it is difficult to fill something that is full. 

 :asian:


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2002)

Back Up Mass  

The use of body weight that is directly behind of the action that is taking place.  For example (1) a punch that is delivered when the elbow is directly behind the fist, or (2) the bracing of one finger behind the other when delivering a 2 finger chop to the throat etc.
Back up mass is greatly enhanced when body alignment is achieved.  Body alignment gets mass into proper perspective and allows the body to take full advantage of channeling wieght  and energy while traveling in the same direction.

Infinite Insights V 

Just a basic definition but like all things in this art it goes deeper.

Misalign the forearm and elbow and see how much power you lose.  Step to 4:30 and see how much power is gained.  It is your choice do what works best.



:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 17, 2002)

No, I don't believe it was taught as incorrect.  It accomplishes its purpose.  While the wide kneel teaches how to drop quickly (vertically) we also learn a new hand combination definition - of front hand Upward action "with" a downward vertical "raking" strike.  Upon expansion, there could be many other uses as well.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> "What about Obscure Wing? That is strictly a "Torque" technique. Can you show me where Marriage with Gravity is used in the base of that technique."
> [/B]



Lance, are you saying there is NO Marriage of Gravity in Obscure Wing?

I agree that there is rotational torque with the swordhand but when you "settle" into your stance you utilize marriage of gravity at that time.

:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 18, 2002)

I wouldn't put it past him to do such a thing....... I  never personally observed it.  However, I have watched him see  something that was not correct and not correct it at that time.

As to actually teach it wrong..... I believe that he might have done that  early on in his career but as for the last 10  years of his life, no.  Too much to teach correct to mess with off track stuff.

:asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Apr 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kenpo3631 _
> *
> NO. What I am saying is the "MAIN" power principle...the "power principle" that get's the job done primarily is TORQUE.:asian: *



So in this technique, to accomplish "Torque" you don't have marriage of gravity play a role in this other than a "minor" roll.  Is that right?


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 17, 2002)

I was taught the same thing by my instructor, Lee Wedlake Jr., that the middle knuckle was taught incorrect for the same reasons you stated. However RainMan's statement or for a better use of phraseology the "term" centrifugal force, I don't necessarily agree with.

"One principle it highlights is centrifugal force. From the outward block punch combo facing 3 o'clock rear cross to 4:30 and use your feet to unwind into your wide kneel" 

 I was taught  that it shows the principle of torque. The first three sets of movement in the form show, (amongst other things), how to use the three power priciples.

 1. Five Swords = Back Up Mass, 2. Block and punch to 3 & 9 = Torque, and 3. Wide kneel, upward block, middle knuckle = Marriage with Gravity.

Dennis come on I know you have more to add for us 

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> 
> That's great if you are an orange belt because it is very basic and easy to understand.  There are no primary power generators unless you are using that as a teaching tool to be later expanded upon.  Back up mass, torque, and gravitational marriage work simultaneously in all three of the combinations you listed.   Upon impact is where they are felt along with breath and projection the culmination of which is deemed focus.
> ...


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



NO. What I am saying is the "MAIN" power principle...the "power principle" that get's the job done primarily is TORQUE.:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *3631,
> 
> ...



If you are hitting with you whole body you must be OUT of alignment. 

Think about it for a minute. Where do you step first? 3 o'clock correct? In which direction does your elbow strike? 6 o'clock, correct? That is the way I was taught it, my original instructor was taught it, Lee Wedlake was taught, Huk Planas was taught, Frank Trejo was taught...etc, etc, etc. 

So how can you honestly say that there is Back Up Mass being used as the underlying power principle of the technique? Wait! Maybe my definition of Back Up Mass is incorrect. Isn't Back Up Mass using your body weight IN-LINE with your strike? Where do you see that in Obscure Wing?

Does anyone else have a different definition of Back Up Mass? I must have heard incorrectly in that class:shrug: 

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> 
> *I have to say that I am doing Obscure Wing wrong then. I like to step into my opponent. If I step to 3:00 then my back up mass is going that way into my stance. Why would I send my weapon to 6:00 in a direction that isn't in harmony with my weight?
> 
> ...



It's not wrong...per se. However if we are talking about the way it is written and the way it is taught to the beginner then , yes, it is wrong. I am just pointing out that as written, stepping back is wrong. Practically...there is nothing that says you can't step back, however I feel you lose the underlying power principle by doing so. 
My question know is, why are you stepping back? You say to gain directional harmony, which is not wrong, but you know as well as I do that we do certain things in the system to show different things, (like the middleknuckle strike in Short 2 :rofl: ).
Also...I think you've been hit in the solar plexus, right Gou? Did it take allot of force to bend you over and knock the wind out of you? My point is you're delivering a hard weapon to a soft target, why do you need to generate all this force when all you need is just enough.
 Another thing is that the "extension" to that technique has you shoot the right leg back to 7:30 to buckle your opponent after the hammerfist to the groin, so why would you want to shorten your travel on the leg? also what if you can't step back? What then eh? 
Besides Bonehead said that the beginning techniques are just half techniques (meaning they have not been completed at that belt level, there is more to them). but then again I was not there...:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rainman _
> 
> *Even if you step to 3 your forearm and hand are behind the elbow strike and that is still considered back up mass.   Your understanding is not wrong but, expand your usage so you are doing many things at once.    Empty your cup it is difficult to fill something that is full.
> 
> :asian: *



Your forearm and hand constitute the same weight as that of you entire body? Hmmmmmm...

"Using your weight in line with your strike on a horizontal plane" is the definition I have always heard from the Kenpo seniors, including Mr. Parker, not use your forearm and hand in line with you strike.

What does it say in the Encyclopedia of Kenpo say?
:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 18, 2002)

Gou, Gou, Gou.... Always the one making light of things. 

Ya know, I am only giving my opions on what I know as I was taught by my instructor. He studies with Huk so I guess he knows what he's talking about. It's just my opinion on things I read. 

Sometimes I guess common sense is lost b/c we try to over analyze and throw our own junk into the base and miss the principles being taught. Not all, but some. Adding is not wrong, but I just wonder sometimes if people understand what the technique is teaching before they tailor it down to fit there own needs.

It IS cursed....:rofl: 

:asian:


----------



## kenpo3631 (Apr 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WilliamTLear _
> 
> *Stepping to three o'clock is NOT the way that I was taught this technique, and I have to say that the way that I do it has been reinforced by several senior black belts under Mr. Parker... Here... let me name a few...
> 
> ...



Bill,
The technique in question is OBSCURE WING _not_ TWIRLING WINGS 
:asian:


----------



## Sigung86 (Apr 17, 2002)

First of all ... And just curious ... Why would SGM Parker design a single flaw into a single kata/set/form to be investigated, perhaps by chance?  If that were the case, then in my concept, that would begin to make the rest of the kata/set/form(s) suspect.  If that is the case then, again, in my concept that would make the kata/set/form(s) pretty much invalid for anything other than wasting time that could be better spent elsewhere in your system ...

If all of the above is turkey-twattle, then what technique do you use in its place?  Do you teach it only as a technique?  Or do you teach it as a modification within Short #2?

Please rebut with some convincing discussions?

Thanks,

Dan Farmer


----------



## Rich_Hale (Jul 16, 2005)

WarriorSage, 

Its a good thing to question the moves inside of the forms.  And its okay that the downward raking middle knuckle fist, in Short 2, isnt one of youre your favorite moves. Its even okay that you would find it odd (or would even taken aback) for Mr. Parker to purposely include an incorrectly executed move inside his system  if that is, in fact, what he did.
Now, lets take your question one step at a time and see what we come up with.

You read on a few websites and forums that the downward raking middle knuckle (with the wide kneel) in short two is incorrect . . .

Although you didnt mention exactly what it is that you think is being done incorrectly, Ill assume it is the lack of support the middle knuckle has upon making contact with your opponents body.  This is the most commonly noticed flaw (if it is one) in Short Form 2, so lets start by saying that if the purpose of that move is to teach a student to strike his opponent with a middle knuckle fist (with the fist in a vertical position), yes it is being done incorrectly.  This is a no brainer, as anyone can make a middle knuckle fist, push up on the middle knuckle and see that it bends like a willow in the wind.

And, secondly, you ask if Mr. Parker included this move to see if his students were actively investigating the forms.

Lets break this second question into two pieces.  First, was it designed by Mr. Parker, and second did he include it to see if his student were actively investigating the forms.

I dont think you will get an argument for anyone that the move you are referring to was indeed included in Short Form 2 by Mr. Parker.  I have been shown, and taught, this form by many high ranking men, and women, in Kenpo, up to and including Mr. Parker himself, and if you are doing a hammering middle knuckle fist, with the fist in a vertical position, you are doing the form as taught by Mr. Parker.

The big question is; Did Mr. Parker include an incorrectly executed move, in order to see if his students were actively investigating the forms?

The answer is no  Mr. Parker would never include an incorrectly executed move within his system for any reason.  

Then if the move was put there by Mr. Parker and the move appears to be done incorrectly, lets go back to the move itself and consider this; is it possible that what you see is not what you get?  In other words are you looking at the middle knuckle or at the hammerfist its attached to?  

If I were to show you a standard five pound sledge hammer, and say its purpose was to bash stuff, you would likely agree that its the right tool for the job.  But, if I were to show you a sledge hammer that was shaped like a middle knuckle fist, and say the same thing, you may become distracted by the shape of my hammer and question my skill as a hammer maker.  But what if I were to take you aside and tell you not to be distracted by the shape f my hammer, but to imagine yourself smashing and bashing stuff with my rather odd looking sledge hammer  do you think you could look past its shape and appreciate its value as a hammer?

I cant tell you if Mr. Parker included that move to see if his students were actively investigating the forms, because I dont know.  But if he did, I doubt that he would have wanted them to stop investigating at finding a move that seemed to done incorrectly.  I think he would have wanted them to continue with the investigation and try to determine the moves true value.


----------

