Forms and Sets > Form 4 > Improving Execution

Coordination is the precise and intentional manipulation of the timing of the various components that comprise an individual and/or group of maneuvers. Coordination requires the direct, deliberate, and skilled control over one's physical self. Changes in coordination can dramatically alter the effectiveness, efficiency, intent, and/or perception of a maneuver or group of maneuvers. In short, coordination is just as significant a factor to successful execution of a form as proper dimensions, alignments, formations, etc. And yet, this essential and influential factor of performance is all too often overlooked, or just not considered or understood.

Coordination should not be confused with method. Where coordination concerns synchronization of (a) maneuver(s), method refers to the manner in which (i.e., how) (a) maneuver(s) is/are executed. For example, changing a maneuver's Method of Execution from Thrusting to Snapping, would, by definition, change the effect, intent, and information pertaining to the maneuver; but a change of method does not necessarily necessitate a change to the coordination of the maneuver.

The clarification of coordination to method brings up an important point about coordination. It is generally considered non-destructive to the information contained within (a) maneuver(s). In other words, a change in coordination typically does not alter the information presented by (a) maneuver(s) in a form, where a change to method would. This means that even though coordination manipulation can control the emphasis point on maneuver(s) or alter whether an individual maneuver's execution is maximized or not, the general information contained within the movement(s) is, in most cases, not changed. Therefore, one may generally feel free to manipulate coordination without a high degree of concern over unintentionally altering the intended information illustrated within a form.

In the context of forms, coordination can be viewed from the following different perspectives:

1)coordination within the execution of an individual maneuver

2)coordination between the execution of a predefined set of maneuvers

3)coordination between groups of predefined set of maneuvers

For the purpose of this analysis, individual maneuver coordination will be referred to as Maneuver Coordination, coordination between multiple maneuvers will be referred to as Self-Defense Technique Coordination, and coordination between groups of predefined maneuvers will be referred to as Transition Coordination. This degree of combining multiple maneuvers into a single unit of analysis is chosen because Long Form Three is a self-defense technique based form. And, when the form is broken down into individual sections for analysis, it is almost always done by looking at the individual self-defense techniques that make up the form. The exception to this rule is isolation sequences. For the purposes of this type of examination, isolation sequences will be treated the same as self-defense techniques.

Coordination is one of the most important constituents to form execution. It should not be overlooked or dismissed as inconsequential or unimportant. One way to understand the importance of coordination is that it is essentially the specific timing of all movement. And to use a famous American Kenpo quote, timing is everything. From each level of coordination, a carefully fashioned timing is used to not only perform the maneuvers correctly, but also to relay pace and the perceived energy of the form; at both the set level (i.e. self-defense or isolation) and the complete form level.

Another way to look at coordination is that it can change a form from being ineffective, boring, and monotonous to one that is dynamic, energetic, and realistic. This is accomplished through the careful, purposeful, and skillful implementation of coordination. Coordination just doesn't happen; it is painstakingly crafted and artistically infused into a form's execution; through practice and acquired self-control. Without proper coordination there can be no proper execution. And finally, with improper coordination there is not only improper form execution, but also a negative perception of form performance, from an observer's perspective.

Note: To read more about coordination refer to "Infinite Insight into Kenpo - Book 4 / Chapter 7". To read more on coordination and how it can more specifically affect a form, refer to "EPAKS Guide to Long Form Two - Execution of Long Form Two, Form Coordination".

Form Coordination - Contributing Factors

Although form coordination has multiple levels from which it may be perceived, it also must be viewed from a more holistic perspective. For instance: how does various maneuver coordination levels affect the form as a whole? And the inverse (opposite) to that perspective: do the objectives of a form contribute to the coordination?

The answer to the first questions can generally be obtained by examining how the two bounding sections of the coordination level are manipulated. The bounding sections of a coordination level are: prior to and just after execution of that movement group.

In general, more time in the bounding sections results in the more individualized and emphasized a group of movements tends to appear overall. In other words, the more the delay between a maneuver group translates into the form appearing to be comprised more of individual pieces than of continuously flowing without transitions. Taking this a step further, putting delays between specific groups can alter how that unit is interpreted in relation to the next unit. This may result in the perception of grouping units together or separating specific maneuvers apart from others. This method of coordination manipulation becomes very important in form perception and is discussed in more detail in the self-defense coordination section.

It must also be noted that speed is another major contributing factor to coordination assessment - although it is inverse to time. In other words, the less speed between transitions (i.e. stopping), the more that unit appears to be distinct. In contrast, more speed (i.e. flow) between movement groups creates the perception of less individualistic units and/or segments that are associated together in some way.

All this then leads to the answer to the last question - which may be approached from a different angle: what causes changes in time? Is it just limited to coordination, or are there other contributing factors?

The objectives of Long Form Three create an ideal environment to answer this set of questions. Generally put, Long Form Three is the study of circles and lines. This form goal exposes a physical fact that becomes apparent upon examination. Dramatic changes in direction and transition to path shape will result in different execution times than less dramatic alterations, at the same relative speed. Also in that regard, different paths (line vs circle) can result in differing times; again, at the same relative speed. This is due to the undeniable truth that a linear path to a specific point in space is shorter than a circular one to that exact same point, starting from the same point in space.

In other words, changing direction dramatically, for instance reversing a line, will take longer than arcing back to the new direction. But the path back will be longer. This is due to the fact that reversing the line slows, stops, and then starts in the opposite direction; where arcing can continue at the same relative speed. But since the arc is a longer path than the line, it will take a longer time to reach the same relative point on the reversed line. But what is the externally perceived result? The line reversal looks more distinctive and potentially edgy, where the arc appears to have more flow and blends the movements together more.

Furthermore, folding these observations back into the theme of Long Form Three, the resulting perception of detailing the transition of circles to lines and vice-versa results in more staccato and less fluid appearance to the form as a whole. And, taken to both the group and individual maneuver level, this results in differing coordination at the bounds than a form that concentrates more on purely circular movement. A good (but not optimal) example of this, can be observed in comparing Long Form Three to Short Form Three. It is relatively clear that the objectives of Long Form Three lead to a less fluid form.

And finally, it must be noted that this overall perception of less fluidity is only amplified by the theme stance of Long Form Three. Without question, the horse stance is less mobile and practical than many other stances. This is primarily due to its general purpose of being optimized more for training than pragmatism in a martial situation. These factors make it abundantly clear that the choices made as to the primary constituents of Long Form Three contributed greatly to its perceived performance characteristics, yet also contributed prominently in the ability to achieve its thematic goals. And still yet, influenced the overall coordination within the form.