<< Click to Display Table of Contents >> Navigation:  Forms and Sets > Form 4 > Appendix C - Guide to Creating a Short Form Four

 

One of the most common questions asked by any American Kenpo practitioner is: "what about Short Form Four?" This question is very logical and obvious, since there is a short form version of all forms up to four. The answer is historical in nature, but is one of those facts that is often overlooked until the question is asked. And, as time progresses, the real answer is less and less known.

 

In short, Short Form Four was never part of the system. It was purposely left out. That is the answer most instructors will give. And, mostly, that is enough for the average practitioner. But that is only the start of the real answer. The real answer is a little more complex and interesting.

 

When the system was originally put together, the self-defense techniques were grouped as thirty-two (32) per belt, stopped after green belt (Back Breaker), there was no yellow belt, and Form Four was the last form. This changed in the 1960's, when more techniques were added (for brown belt and up), forms five (5) and six (6) were added, and yellow belt was created in the early 1970's; and finally form seven (7) was added in the 1980's.

 

But, in the beginning, it was intended that the practitioner use brown belt as a way of perfecting their material and understandings of the art as a gateway to black belt. The only thing one was required to learn during their brown belt was Form Four. This was all purposeful. The intent was that the practitioner was not only perfecting their physical, but also perfecting their mental - to get a more complete and deeper understanding of the art.

 

This left the practitioner with a lot of time (up to a year and a half) working on and exploring the material they had learned up to that point. And, one of the things that was left for them to work on was creating a Short Form Four from Form Four. Along with this, another set of requirements for advancement from brown belt was the practitioner was to produce a personal form and a thesis about a subject of their choice.

 

Each of these requirements were to be reviewed and scrutinized by the instructor and defended and improved on by the practitioner; until they reached an acceptable level - at which point the practitioner would be promoted to black belt. The overall intent was to somewhat parallel a college doctorate. At that time, the typical student starting at white belt would take about five (5) years to obtain their black belt. Closely equivalent in time to a college degree.

 

All of this changed in the 1960's when SGM Parker would lose students because they felt they weren't "learning anything" for an extended period of time, while still paying for classes. Although SGM Parker preferred to maintain his original design, monetary concerns forced the change. Essentially, he was forced to add more and more materials to calm the masses.

 

To be fair, SGM Parker was an innovator, and as such would have probably modified the requirements over time; just in a different way than was done. As times changed so did SGM Parker, and as he advanced in his thoughts, so would have his system.

 

But, as stated, this specific change was not because SGM Parker preferred it. It was due to external pressures. SGM Parker always maintained that his original design was better - it just didn't work well within the commercial realm. So, as a businessman, he gave in and gave the people what they wanted, even though he knew it would negatively affect what he believed to be a better method of teaching the art. A better approach that would leave the black belt practitioner with a more complete understanding of the art and a more honed ability to not only perform the system, but also more accurately and comprehensively pass it on to their students.

 

Granted, that scheme was designed more for the long-term and dedicated student. One who might want to become an instructor someday. Someone that wished to become a master of the art; not the average student that just wanted to learn how to defend themself. And in the end, the commercial aspects won out - at the expense of the more dedicated. And thus, the system has been dramatically impacted by this significant decision ever since.

 

With this change also came the dropping of the requirement for creating a Short Form Four from Form Four. As an adjunct to that removal of the requirement, also came the elimination of the ability of understanding how to accomplish this objective. And, over time, even the memory that such a thing was required or even existed in the original design began to fade away.

 

Therefore, the key goal of this appendix is to not only answer the question of why, but also to expose and revive this lost ability. And, after reviewing this information it is recommended that the reader attempt to personally perform this task; because this exercise forces one to stretch their abilities into avenues of thought and expression that are not articulated in many other areas of the system.

 

It is assumed that the reader of this book series more associates with the long-term practitioner and less with the average commercial student. And as such, the reader should take up the challenge of performing this task as their own personal ambition; using the following instructions as their guide. The remainder of this narrative will help in this appeal by laying out the guidelines and rules an instructor would have given their student at that time.

 

But, the most important thing that the reader should keep in mind throughout the remainder of this illustration is that there is no absolute correct way to come to a "standard" Short Form Four. Be cognizant that the point of the exercise was always to put into practice one's abilities and creativity in an effort to produce an outcome - not create a predetermined "standard" form.

 

Also, the resulting outcome would be reviewed, scrutinized, defended, and potentially tweaked with one's instructor. But, because now there is no instructor in this exercise, one must come to a determination of what they believe is a correct version on their own. Ultimately, the point of the task was always that it is a learning exercise, not a new lesson of how to preform something a specific way.

 

And, that is why there is no final written or graphically illustrated version of Short Form Four within this book series. Although, if one does wish to see a visual example of a Short Form Four, they may do so on the EPAKS YouTube channel at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRgqQrE-vF8

Guidelines

To accomplish the goal of constructing a short form from a long form, one must understand the major characteristic and physical differences between a short and a long form, along with the suggestions of how to implement this array of patterns into their creation. Here is a chart of the most important characteristics of each type of form:

 

 

To review these elements in more detail, let's start with skew. If one were to take Short Form Three and Long Form Three as an example, they would undeniably say that the execution of Short Form Three gives the impression of being more realistic than the execution of Long Form Three. Why is a question that is answered in detail in the books on these forms, and is only quickly eluded to in the following text. Suffice it to say, that this precedent should be carried forward into Form Four.

 

Where Form Four may take a more thematic or stylistic approach to certain maneuvers contained within the form, Short Form Four can set an aim more toward realism. In other words, use more realistic lines and maneuvers.

 

As one example, Circling Fans executes its starting parries on a vertical path of overlapping vertical circular motions, rather than on the more realistic figure eight (8) pattern. This is to highlight the fact that it is the reverse pattern to Reversing Circles. Short Form Four may change those paths back to the figure eight (8) pattern, if desired.

 

Why? Because the vertical rendition is already demonstrated in the long version, and to repeat it in the short version is redundant and unnecessary. In short, its already done. Instead, it would be more advantageous to demonstrate the same set of maneuvers in a different manner. In this case, a more realistic manner.

 

It is significant to note at this juncture that implementing changes like this requires a knowledge of Form Four and reasons as to why the form is executed as it is. Without this knowledge, this change would be nearly impossible to implement.

 

Also, this scenario is a prime situation of an instructor to student review discussion. One as to why something the student produced was or was not done a specific way. This hypothetical discussion would not only demonstrate the student's knowledge base of Form Four, but also allow for further education into the forms and the task at hand. But the discussion process is beyond the abilities of this venue, yet does highlight the importance of a good instructor.

 

While on a tangent, it should also be noted that since the requirement of creating short forms was removed from the system, individuals took to adding variations into the long form to compensate for the more stylized maneuvers of the long form. This was done because there was no longer a place for expressing this observation into the short form. And, without the knowledge or requirement of creating a short form, practitioners were only left with altering the long form. Again, to the detriment of the system as a whole.

 

Next, isolation sequences. If one were to review all the forms, they will find that none of the short forms have isolation sequences. This should hold true for the resulting Short Form Four. It is suggested that the output form should purposely eliminate all isolation sequences and instead progress to the next self-defense technique in the form. Although, it should be noted that there are some individuals that disregard this guideline and include the isolation sequences within their short form versions.

 

Next, angles. This refers to the direction of execution taken throughout the form. It is generally considered the easiest and most logical course to follow the same general angles as the long form.

 

Please remember that these are guidelines, not rules or principles. The major point of the task is to express one's self by producing a short form from a long form in which a discussion of why something was done is elicited. Not create a permanent form to be taught to a student. This situation would conclude in further help, knowledge transfer, and/or corrective guidance from a qualified instructor.

 

Next, self-defense techniques. Again, a quick review of the forms highlights the fact that short forms only execute a single side of a self-defense technique, where long forms execute both sides of the self-defense technique. And, as another general recommendation one should include only the self-defense techniques present in the long form. As with all of these guidelines, this is not a mandate.

 

A good example of an exception to this policy is Short and Long Form Three. But if one were to deviate from this policy one should be able to defend their choice both in why and which self-defense technique they chose to include and/or exclude from the short version.

 

Instead, as a provided direction into moving from long to short, the general model to follow is to condense the sequence of the long form by alternating between sides of the techniques. The form should start with the same technique as the long version, but then alternate sides of the self-defense techniques as the form progresses.

 

Finally, the start of the short form should match the start of the long form and branch out from there. This is to demonstrate the knowledge that short forms are designed to start themes and long forms are designed to expand upon those themes.

 

In contrast, the ends of the forms may differ, if necessary. It is considered a more skilled and difficult task to have both versions of the form end the same way. But this is not an absolute requirement.

 

Again, as one can easily tell by the name of this section, these are guidelines. They were designed to be conveyed as such with the final aim of producing a touchstone into the current knowledge of a student. To generate a situation where the instructor and student may discuss and trade information about their progress into the art of American Kenpo. To produce a more well-rounded understanding of the forms and how they fit into the design of American Kenpo.

 

Which ultimately may be one of the biggest reasons as to why this is no longer a requirement within the system. It really doesn't fit that well into a commercial environment where a single instructor may be teaching dozens, if not hundreds of individuals.

 

Where this type of requirement fits well is within a smaller or more personable teaching situation. Or, with the more serious and long-term student(s). Not the students who just want to learn American Kenpo as a practical self-defense method and potentially move on. Rather, the dedicated individual who strives to really understand American Kenpo as more than for exercise or a product for self-defense. The person who desires a more serious and comprehensive study of movement as it relates to defensive situations. In short, to study it as a martial art.