Short 2 and other worthless notes

[warriorsage]

"Hey, how 'bout them Angels!"

Hey DC, I grew up with Garrett Anderson (he was a summertime resident of our city, lived around the corner). The Giants could've used my knowledge of how to pitch to him. Oh wait, that was only good in wiffle ball, and that was 15 years ago...

 

[Goldendragon7]

You should have called Dusty! Wiffle or not that could have helped them LOL

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I partly agree. It dawned on me that some of the conversants simply hadn't learned the second side of Long 1, about the time I was into arguing. Which is why I said, "Oops."

However, I still don't see why it's necessary to begin Long 1--or any other form--with the left side first. It'll come along in its own good time,

Moreover, the whole system--from the moment of the first lesson, in which a neophyte steps out with their left foot into a horse stance (hm. There's an interesting argument), or back with the left to start Delayed Sword--emphasizes that right side. Why jack around with that?

I also agree that the argument's been had before, especially with regard to running the techniques on both sides. Sure, OK.

But do we actually know whether or not this helps? I know for a fact--at least based on my experience, always a bit shaky ground--that teaching the kenpo system right-side dominant works. Do we know that teaching both sides works? How? Were folks with 20+ years of experience taught this way? If not, how were they taught?

I also really question this whole "symmetry," business, as I've already noted. Not in the sense that it's wrong, but that I want to see the rationale for it. I think we're simply accepting symmetry as a goal, without thinking about the reasons. More important than that, possibly--and I'll try to put this in a way that indicates my own stick-in-the-mud quality as much as anything else--I don't hold with this newfangled kenpo teachin'.

I can't say that I really know how kenpo was "traditionally," taught--does anybody? But I can say that some of the stuff I've seen at tournaments, especially with regard to forms, is just plain silly. There's a lot of improvisation out there, and it's coming from folks who don't even know what the hell it is that they're changing. Change, by all means: I wish I were better at that. But know what the base is, first.

It's the same stuff I tell my writing students. First, finally there are no rules in writing. You can do whatever you want on a page, provided that a) you let the reader in on what you're doing in some fashion; b) you're doing something that makes sense; c) you understand what it is that you're doing; d) you play by the rules you've established; e) it works on good readers. It isn't that I oppose changing things, particularly since we're not altogether sure what the "original," kenpo system aand its teaching methods were. But I am against changing things just for the sake of changing them, particularly by folks who don't know what they're changing.


I ran into a good example of this on kenponet last wekk. Somebody wrote in to say that they'd done Long 4 at a tournament, and really well, apparently, because a judge came up and said that they form was beautifully done, but wrong. Why? They'd been taught to do all the techniques oriented to 6:00 (Circling Windmills, Defensive Cross, etc.) oriented to 12:00, so the judges could see it better. What's wrong with this? beyond the fact that I dislike the whole idea of changing the forms just to win a little trophy, the really important thing is that the student had no idea that they'd been taught the form in a changed fashion.

They did not know the original form. They thought that the orientation to 12:00 was correct. They did not know that it'd been changed, and they had no idea why it had been changed.

Talk about symmetry? How 'bout teaching students to look behind them in a fight?

Anyway, thanks for the arguments. It's a real pleasure to discuss this material, without some bozo hurling insults because we aren't saying what they want to hear.

Sincerely,
Robert

 

[SingingTiger]

No, not different--wrong.

Thanks for the tip.

As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm not at an EPAK school. My understanding is that our curriculum is basically the original material that Ed Parker started with, along with some modifications when the school was purchased thirty years ago by someone who had gone through a Tracy's program. The current owner is not interested in the political ramifications of being a part of a large organization, and seeing some of the comments in various threads in this forum, I can't say I blame him.

I've been arguing a couple of points about forms, simply because the forms that we do -- at least up through Short 2, and possibly the higher forms as well -- are very similar, if not identical, to the forms taught at EPAK schools. But that doesn't mean that what is taught at EPAK schools is "right," and what is taught at my school is "wrong," contrary to what you might believe. If I claimed to be studying at an EPAK school and insisted that there was no difference between the first two blocks in Short 1 (for example), you might very well be able to claim that I was wrong, and Mr. Conatser would apparently back you up on that. I hope that I haven't accidentally given the impression that I'm claiming to be studying something that I'm not by the nature of the arguments that I've been making, that was never my intention. If you're up for a discussion of the wisdom of studying at an EPAK school vs. studying at a non-EPAK school I might be up for it, depending on what else was going on, but I think you'll agree that that discussion might be better suited to a different thread.

You're reinventing the wheel, which (again, sorry) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in this case.

When you mentioned the salutation, and I looked it up in "II,v.5", I suspected that we may have been arguing a non-issue all along. Although the form is only described off one side, the salutation as written would certainly indicate that it can and should be performed off both sides. At my school, we start doing Short 1 off the B side a belt or two above where we learned it, and I suspect the same is true for the other forms as well.

As far as the salutation goes, I see you're point, but this falls into that "right" and "wrong" difference I mentioned earlier. By the way, I never referred to the salutation as a "pointless formality," and I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I had when you enclosed the phrase in quotation marks.

How do you do Coordination Set 1?

I don't, and I don't recall seeing it mentioned on any of the belt charts. I'll look for it this morning.

Again, I really apologize if I'm being rude. But...

I only took the small amount of offense that you afforded me at the beginning of your post. But one thing you might want to remember is that when someone offers an apology that starts with, "I'm sorry, but...", the only thing that's really being offered is what comes after the "but."

Thanks to Mr. Conatser for clarifying the Long 1 issue. The interpretation of my description was accurate.

the closing uppercut of the right side turns into the inward block of the left

Where is this? The end of Long 1?

Rich

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I agree that the system is right-side dominant.

To me, the question is: is the a product of prejudice, or history, or reality?

I think it works as right side dominant very well indeed. Question is, why?

Robert

I think you've almost answered your own question. If 90% of people are right handed then a right hand dominant system will work best for 90% of the people. It’s not some anti lefty prejudice but rather a simple reality of making a curriculum for a large number of people to use. If I want to make a system that is most useful to the most people then by necessity the base curriculum will be right hand dominant.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I partly agree. It dawned on me that some of the conversants simply hadn't learned the second side of Long 1, about the time I was into arguing. Which is why I said, "Oops."
Sincerely, Robert

Thank you for the recant.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
However, I still don't see why it's necessary to begin Long 1--or any other form--with the left side first. It'll come along in its own good time.
Sincerely, Robert

Well, as I personally have stated before - it is not a "necessity" to begin the form with the left side first but rather an OPTION to "reverse the order" from what we do normally as a mainstream so as to offer a different perspective and additional training with a slightly different look on the same thing (Tim O'Riley) . The system does more or less "equal out" left and right on its own with time, but reversing sides first and just plain doing the opposite sides are additional training possibilities. Again, just an option for those that want to not a knock to those who don't just a "different" or optional way of training to help the students. Now if an individual instructor wants to make this a part of their "base" activity.... well .... heck so be it for them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Moreover, the whole system--from the moment of the first lesson, in which a neophyte steps out with their left foot into a horse stance (hm. There's an interesting argument), or back with the left to start Delayed Sword--emphasizes that right side. Why jack around with that?
Sincerely, Robert

Well, I agree with you in part because there is a lesson there in repetition to ingrain that movement to the beginner, however at the same time we also know that if we start good habits early the end results down the road can be awesome. So, I (in over 25 years of experience have taught both ways and know from experience that I have proven results with my own students) like to start the working of the complete curriculum on both sides not just the basics (which I'm sure you don't just punch or block with only one side of your body) from the get go. Again, not a slam to anyone that does not do the same, but it works really well for me and that is all that I'm trying to relay. If you feel you don't need it ........ cool that's ok too. Remember I did it that way also once upon a time until I found what works better for me in my opinion.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I also agree that the argument's been had before, especially with regard to running the techniques on both sides. Sure, OK.

But do we actually know whether or not this helps? I know for a fact--at least based on my experience, always a bit shaky ground--that teaching the kenpo system right-side dominant works. Do we know that teaching both sides works? How? Were folks with 20+ years of experience taught this way? If not, how were they taught?
Sincerely, Robert

I think I answered this pretty well just above. No, there have been no Gallop Polls to Validate the findings just my personal results as a Kenpo teacher. But that is good enough for me. My students are better than I was, but they have made me more knowledgeable also from the experimentation.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I also really question this whole "symmetry," business, as I've already noted. Not in the sense that it's wrong, but that I want to see the rationale for it. I think we're simply accepting symmetry as a goal, without thinking about the reasons. More important than that, possibly--and I'll try to put this in a way that indicates my own stick-in-the-mud quality as much as anything else--I don't hold with this newfangled kenpo teachin'.
Sincerely, Robert

LOL, well I wouldn't say that it is this "new fangled Kenpo teachin'" as you put it. Mr. Parker and I years ago (18 or more ... and geeze he's not been with us for nearly 12 years!) discussed this whole ordeal and his Purple Belt saying says it all.......

"While there is a difference between the terms "opposite and reverse", both provide answers to thoroughly understanding the effects of motion."

He felt that practicing on both sides of "everything" was a great idea but he did not "force" anyone to do it. He just suggested it if you wanted to work on yourself and to what degree. I personally took that as a green light and immediately started requiring students to do both sides of everything (forms, sets & techniques) just like we do the basics already. It for me was a great choice. Students have proven to be more flexible in terms of left and right movements and react with less hesitation in the long run when formulating or in the gaseous stage. It is however, a process and results do not show up clearly in the beginning so I understand the resistance and extra work that some feel is not necessary. To those I salute and say .... I'll meet you in Rome, I realize there are more roads out there than the one I personally am on, so keep an open mind and share what your journey has enlightened to you ..... hecks I may switch roads at a future junction..... who knows... lol

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I can't say that I really know how kenpo was "traditionally," taught--does anybody?
Sincerely, Robert

Well, Robert yes there are many that have been around for much longer than you and I and they do know what they were taught and how. But I don't think that is the question. Remember another of Mr. Parkers Purple belt sayings, "Knowledge is BOUND when one is compelled to tradition, knowledge is ENDLESS when tradition is bound." We have our traditions yet we don't become subservient to them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
But I can say that some of the stuff I've seen at tournaments, especially with regard to forms, is just plain silly. There's a lot of improvisation out there, and it's coming from folks who don't even know what the hell it is that they're changing. Change, by all means: I wish I were better at that. But know what the base is, first.
Sincerely, Robert

As far as tournaments go and what you have just said above.... I totally agree with you. You are correct ....... many do not even know the system correctly or deeply and are changing it for the worse in my opinion.

You must be careful however, some just make changes for the "event" and not to their personal art that they practice in the studio. So what you see is not always what they practice as THEIR BASE, you have to inquire to find out.

As to BASE SYSTEM understanding that you mention you must also have a little levity and realize that many are not taught the system the same. So there are many BASES out there and many do not contain all that you know from yours. My Base may contain or have many factors that you have not learned yet or is void of. So, you must be careful when commenting on others takes ....... understanding that there are many aspects and details that many are not aware of thru instruction of their lineage for any number of reasons.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
It's the same stuff I tell my writing students. First, finally there are no rules in writing. You can do whatever you want on a page, provided that a) you let the reader in on what you're doing in some fashion; b) you're doing something that makes sense; c) you understand what it is that you're doing; d) you play by the rules you've established; e) it works on good readers.
Sincerely, Robert

You mention rules which reminds me of what Ed Parker told me about rules and fair play. He said,"fair play or rules, is when your opponents definition of fair play or rules, MATCHES that of yours."

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
It isn't that I oppose changing things, particularly since we're not altogether sure what the "original," kenpo system aand its teaching methods were. But I am against changing things just for the sake of changing them, particularly by folks who don't know what they're changing.
Sincerely, Robert

This I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE ON!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I ran into a good example of this on kenponet last wekk. Somebody wrote in to say that they'd done Long 4 at a tournament, and really well, apparently, because a judge came up and said that they form was beautifully done, but wrong. Why? They'd been taught to do all the techniques oriented to 6:00 (Circling Windmills, Defensive Cross, etc.) oriented to 12:00, so the judges could see it better. What's wrong with this? beyond the fact that I dislike the whole idea of changing the forms just to win a little trophy, the really important thing is that the student had no idea that they'd been taught the form in a changed fashion.
Sincerely, Robert

Well, that is not the students fault but the instructors. If he/she made a change then they should have informed the student. This is exactly how things get passed down incorrectly!! Soon this student breaks away and forms a studio and teaches it way he learned it and then runs into you or I and we ask why the form is done in that manner and the answer is that's the way I learned it. LOL Oh boy....... here we go........

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
They did not know the original form. They thought that the orientation to 12:00 was correct. They did not know that it'd been changed, and they had no idea why it had been changed.
Sincerely, Robert

Yep, Correct Ignorance

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Talk about symmetry? How 'bout teaching students to look behind them in a fight?
Sincerely, Robert

Originally posted by rmcrobertson Anyway, thanks for the arguments. It's a real pleasure to discuss this material, without some bozo hurling insults because we aren't saying what they want to hear.
Sincerely, Robert

Actually, I don't like to use the word "arguments". I'd rather consider it discussion or debate. It sounds more professional and less insulting as you say.

And yes, agree or disagree it has been a fun and enjoyable joust.

:asian:

 

[jeffkyle]

Man Brian! Look what you started....again!

Ok so we talk about symmetry.....that is opposite/reverse, forward/backward.

So my question is this. How many of you do short 2 backward, from the end to the beginning? And of course on side A and side B?
Talk about your symmetry....

 

[Goldendragon7]

Surprised that someone knows what they are talking about?

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, first and last points first and real quick. I ain't recantin' nothin'. I merely pointed out that I hadn't understood the situation fully enough. Second: "argument," is precisely the correct--and I might add the professional--word to use. It is an academic word, and it implies the presentation of a clear topic, an arguable thesis (a thesis everybody agree with is not a thesis, but a truism), the presentation of idea and evidence in support of that thesis, and the attempt to reach a conclusion. It does not imply the, "Jane, you ignorant slut," approach to discussion: that is an image created by a culture that has apparently decided that screaming incoherently, hurling insults, and refusing to listen to others or attend to reality (Rush, Leykis, "Crossfire," "The McLaughlin Report," etc., etc.) are intellectual discussion.

I still want to know why symmetry is in and of itself a value. Not that I'm saying this is wrong: I want to hear the--ah--arguments.

Thanks.

 

[Sigung86]

Just a thought Robert ...

If this is something you can do, why not do it and, perhaps, be pleasantly surprised at what may come out of it? You may break some ground and find things others have not. Unless it is troublesome.

Dan

 

[rmcrobertson]

Tried it briefly. Too easy.

But then there's Clyde's little horror: doing the forms backwards.

Oh yeah...but heere's a question: how are the wide kneels different?

Thanks,
Robert

 

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Tried it briefly. Too easy.

But then there's Clyde's little horror: doing the forms backwards.

Oh yeah...but heere's a question: how are the wide kneels different?

Thanks,
Robert

My good man...

They are like narrow kneels but with a fat pillow between you knees! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dan

 

[rmcrobertson]

I rejoice that you only wrote, "pillow," Dan.

 

[WhiteTiger]

In the AK system I began my training in, both sides of all forms, through Long 3 anyway, were required for advancement. However since moving to the Tracy system only the Power side of each form is required, with one exception (Mass Attack). Not until Sandan do you have to learn all forms on the weak side, but by that time it comes pretty easily because for Nidan you learn all techniques on the weak side, and you've been practicing the more difficult one's in the forms since you first learned Long 3. If you just let it flow, all you realy need to remember is the transitions are opposite.

 

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by Elfan
I do everything on both sides. It is preferable to defend with your more corodinated hand to the front but thats not always possible. Being able to use either hand with near equal profeciency increases the choices you have, which IMHO, is a very good thing.

Are you one of Matt Moncreaff's students?

 

[kenpo3631]

Originally posted by warriorsage
I'll never be one to try and say that I know the system inside and out, but...

I really think the defenses are geared for a right-handed person and not mainly the attacks. Many of the attacks feature left punches, left grabs, left ___, etc. True, a left grab may be done only to allow the right punch to follow, but I doubt any righties would attack with a step through left hooking punch. (ARrgh!! the step through punch, that's another topic of debate.)

I find that the majority of our retaliatory efforts are right-side dominant. Even when your left side is forward, the main strikes or kicks seem to be right. I realize this isn't a major breakthrough, just my observation. I agree with the elfster, that a left-handed person should be taught the opposite techniques from the start to give them a better chance for survival earlier in the game.

What's up kids?!? I 'm home for the holidays...

You're correct~ the system is right side dominant. I am left handed myself and found no problem learning the techniques of the system. Most people in our society are right handed. So the majority of those that study EPAK have no problem. For those of us "lefties", teaching the student the techniques on the opposite side works very well.:asian: