Techniques on both sides?

[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.