KenpoStart,
Your first statement is: "I've learned that there is always an opposite in Kenpo movements, etc."
The statement is correct, but before we go any further, let's clarify the terms Opposite Motion and Reverse Motion.
Opposite Motion: Is the principal that any motion done to one side can be matched on the other side.
For an example of Opposite Motion lets use a right inward block and a right front step through. The opposite movement associated with a right inward block would be a left inward block. The opposite of a right front step through would be a left front step through.
Opposites can be verified by mirror imaging. Stand in front of a mirror and execute a right inward block. Now look at yourself in the mirror and tell me, from a mirrored perspective, what block is the guy in the mirror doing? The correct answer is a left inward block.
Now continue to explore Opposite Motion with a right straight punch, which becomes a left straight punch, a right front twist stance becomes a left front twist stance, a right neutral bow becomes a left neutral bow, a right cat becomes a left cat.
Note that the term Opposite can refer to both fixed positions (the stance itself) and motion (moving into, or out of, a stance).
Your second statement however, "There are opposite stances like forward bow and reverse bow" on the other hand, is not correct.
Referring to a forward bow and a reverse bow, as being opposites, is inconsistent with how Mr. Parker defined both the term Opposite and the term Opposite Motion.
Mr. Parker defined the term Opposite as the other side, or mirrored image, of whatever you execute. Based on Mirror Imaging, the opposite of a right forward bow is a left forward bow. The opposite of a right reverse bow is a left reverse bow.
And again, Opposite Motion: Is the principal that any motion done to one side can be matched on the other side.
Therefore, forward bows and reverse bows are not opposite of one another, neither are they reverses of one another.
The definition of Reverse Motion: Is motion returning on the same path of an initiated move.
A little misguided logic may lead one to think a right reverse bow is the reverse of a right forward bow, but this is easily disproved. If I start from a right forward bow then pivot into a right reverse bow, I could then reverse my motion again and it would take me back to my original forward bow. On the surface this seems to prove a reverse bow is the reverse of a forward bow.
But, lets say I started in a right neutral bow, now I pivot into a right forward bow. The reverse motion of this action would bring me back to where? Would it take me into a right reverse bow? Nope, it would take me right back to a right neutral bow again.
Other examples may help to clarify this further, as the example of Forward and Reverse Bows can be a little confusing, because the names of the movements and the names of the stances both include the words forward and reverse.
Lets go back and incorrectly assume that the reverse of a forward bow is a reverse bow. If this were true, the reverse of a right front punch would be what, a right reverse punch? Nope, it would be a right back elbow.
What about the reverse of a right upward block? Would the reverse of a right upward block be a right downward block? Nope, it would start with a right downward elbow and end with a right back elbow.
You can arrive at this in the same way Mr. Parker did - by filming yourself doing a right upward block and playing it in "reverse". Start with your right fist near your right hip and execute a right upward block. Now, from the completion point of you right upward block, stop and reverse the film. Now watch yourself in reverse motion. You will see yourself doing, both, a right downward, then a right back elbow, as your fist returns to its point of origin, near your right hip. You will not see anything resembling a downward block.
Kenpo, like anything else, has gray areas. Take, for example, that an outward block is commonly referred to as being the reverse motion of an inward block. Under most circumstances I would not bother to debate the validity of this statement, but for purpose of this conversation I will.
Closely scrutinize the reverse motion of a right inward block and you have, either, a right back elbow, or a right over-the-shoulder back knuckle, depending on the starting position of your original move.
The opposite of right upward block is a left upward block, but the reverse of a right upward block is not a right downward block (even though it would fit neatly into our in-out-up-down sequence of Short Form 1), but a right downward and back elbow.
Another method of analyzing reverse motion is to remember that reverse motion will always take you back to its point of origin, and do so by following its original path of travel, only in reverse. So, if I start in a horse stance with my fists chambered to my sides, no matter what action I take, the reverse of that action will return me to the same chambered position I started from.
The same is true for kicks. If I were to start from a left neural bow and execute a right front kick to 12 oclock. What would the reverse motion of that kick be? Hopefully you wont say a right back kick to 6 oclock, because the reverse motion of a right front kick to 12 oclock would, at best, be a right vertical hook kick traveling downward from 12 oclock in the direction of 6 oclock, while in route back to its point of origin, a left neutral bow.
You also asked if there is an "inverse" bow for a neutral bow.
According to the Webster dictionary, inverse is simply another term for opposite, so the inverse of a right neural bow would be the same as the opposite of a right neutral bow, which would still be a left neutral bow.
I do understand what you are asking though. You are asking what position, or stance, are we in during the execution of a cover, when we have moved the lead foot to the opposite side, before turning to face the opposite direction.
The answer to this question is (if the cover is done correctly) we are not actually going to be in a stance during this transition. For the purpose of teaching embryonic basics we will often Freeze Frame a students motion while teaching them how to transition themselves from one stance to another.
Take, for example, the simple action of stepping back into a right neutral bow. We will often have the student step back with their left foot and then pivot into a right neutral bow, which is actually two separate movements and technically incorrect. The proper method of stepping into a right neutral bow is to step back with your left foot while pivoting into a right neutral bow, which is a single movement.
The same is true when executing a cover. Done correctly there is no stance between the original neutral bow and the completed cover position. Done correctly the student will step to the opposite while pivoting into the cover position.
However, when using the Freeze Frame method of teaching a cover, I will demonstrate a cover by first stepping to the opposite side, with my front foot, then temporally freeze in that position (giving the student time to comprehend whats taking place), before pivoting into the covered position. But, even while in this frozen position it would not be considered an opposite, inverse, or reverse neutral bow, but a modified neutral bow.
Modified neutral bows are much more common than most people are aware of. Take for example one of Kenpos most popular, and well known techniques, Five Swords. Pretty much everyone knows the first move, in Five Swords, is to have your right foot step forward into a right neutral bow, while simultaneously executing a right inward block to your opponents right forearm, while using your left hand as a check at your opponents right wrist.
So far, so good, but the technique also requires the result of your right neutral bow to be a check to your opponents right knee, with your right knee, also known as a cross check.
Mr. Parkers definition of a Cross Check is: Crossing to the opposite side of your opponent's body, when pinning, or striking him, so that your action prevents him from retaliating.
Many students fail to accomplish this, because they are still fixated on achieving the classic neutral bow, were you have a front-toe, back-heel alignment.
Countless times, during class, instructors tell their students to either drop back into a neutral bow, or step forward into a neutral bow. We do this in preparation to practice foot maneuvers, kicks, techniques, forms, sets, freestyle, etc. And ninety percent of the time the instructor is expecting the students to step into the classic front-toe, back-heel, neutral bow, position.
However, in the case of Five Swords, as in many real-life situations, we should actually be stepping into a modified neutral bow, with our foot crossing over our center-line, in order to come into contact with, and cross check, our opponents right knee. Freeze Frame that position and we will again see the same modified neutral bow we see Freeze Framing the first movement of a cover.
Hopefully I have helped clarify opposite and reverse motion, without adding to any confusion you may already have. But, I would be amiss if I were not to bring a little more of Kenpos gray area into focus.
As I stated earlier Mr. Parkers definition of Reverse Motion is: Is motion returning on the same path of an initiated move. A less well know term among Mr. Parkers Encyclopedia of Kenpo is Returning Motion which is: Recoiling motion that takes alternate paths on its return, as opposed to following the same path from which it stemmed. This term is not to be confused with Reverse Motion.
This clearly clarifies that reverse motion does not deviate from its original path of travel on its way back to its point of origin. Any movement that does now falls into the classification of Returning Motion.
Then why is the technique Reversing Mace where a right inward parry circles (out of its original path of action) into a mace as it returns to your opponents midsection not called Returning Mace?
In answer to my own question, as Doc has previously mentioned, Mr. Parker always had premonitions of an early passing. I once asked him, while sitting in his office, how he could possible find the time to accomplish the tremendous amount of writing that was stacked, floor to ceiling. He told me was a visionary and how he had always been able to clearly see what he was going to accomplish in his life. But he also said, being a visionary, he could also see that his life was going to be cut short and the only way he could possible accomplish his lifes work (within his lifetime) was to work unceasingly.
Mr. Parker went on to demonstrate how he would nod-off at his desk, or catch a cat-nap on the floor of his office, while working all night, night after night.
So who are we to nit-pick at the little things he was unable to complete, or clarify, before his passing? Mr. Parker gave us everything he had to give, asking only that we study his work with an open mind.
Sounds to me like KenpoStart is off to a GoodStart
P.S. The opposite of a Concave stance, based on mirror imaging, would be not be a Convex Stance, but remain a Concave Stance. Just like a Horse Stance, which is convex in nature, would remain a Horse Stance.
