Crashing Wings / Dominating Circles - Transition Stance - Inclusion

<< Click to Display Table of Contents >>

Navigation:  Forms and Sets > Long Form 3 > Variations > Specific Variations >

Crashing Wings / Dominating Circles - Transition Stance - Inclusion

This variation is generally considered destructive.

 

The transitional maneuver from Crashing Wings to Dominating Circles of shifting back into a horse stance between the techniques is eliminated. This variation is accomplished by executing Dominating Circles directly from the final maneuver (hammer-fist) of Crashing Wings (#4), instead of shifting back into a transitional horse stance between the two techniques (#4). This variation basically comes down to an argument of efficiency of movement over theme.

 

Rationale For

The rationale for this variation is to be more efficient in execution. In other words, not executing the transitional horse removes a step in the transition from one technique to another, and is therefore a more efficient sequence. Secondarily, not executing the transitional horse gives a smoother, and therefore less staccato, feel to the overall impression of the form, from the observer's perspective.

 

Rationale Against

The rationale against this variation is that not executing the transitional horse deviates from one of the formulated themes of the form (horse stance). Eliminating the transitional horse diminishes this theme from both a systematic and design perspective. Secondarily, eliminating the transitional horse also affects a lesser-known element of the form, which demonstrates the degrees of progressing from one self-defense techniques to another. This spectrum includes, transitioning with a preliminary maneuver (Long Form Three), switching directly from one self-defense technique to another (Short Form Three), and finally grafting two techniques together seamlessly (Long Form Three). And finally, removing the transitional horse does indeed affect the overall general appearance of the form, by varying its perceived rhythm; from an observer's perspective. And, this alteration goes against the form's intended objectives.