# Static lineage kata vs. individually adapted kata



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2010)

After looking at all of the versions of seisan out there and studying karate for a while, I was wondering why do we practice kata the same way this or that old master practiced it when this or that old master changed the kata to fit his own personal preference?

Wouldn't it be more traditional to learn the kata, learn the principles, and then practice the kata with the applications that work best for you in mind?  What kind of kata do you practice, static lineage kata or individually adapted kata?  Why?


----------



## searcher (Dec 19, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> After looking at all of the versions of seisan out there and studying karate for a while, I was wondering why do we practice kata the same way this or that old master practiced it when this or that old master changed the kata to fit his own personal preference?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more traditional to learn the kata, learn the principles, and then practice the kata with the applications that work best for you in mind? What kind of kata do you practice, static lineage kata or individually adapted kata? Why?


 

Very good question, IMO!!!      I find it to be best to make the kata work for myself as an individual, rather than what worked for someone else.     I go outside the boundaries of my primary style when it comes to finding kata that work for, not onlymyself, but my students as well.     I have been fortunate enought over the years to have the chance to learn kata from several different systems and incorporate them into my class curriculum.     I have also had to "prune" away some kata form what I teach completely.     I have recently started working with the Ashihara Karate kata and they fit quite nicely into my school and they work very well for my students.     I have never been nor will I ever be opposed to taking what we need from any system and using it to make ourselves better karateka.     I feel that we cannot blindly stick to what was working 50-100+ years ago.     I think the masters of old would agree with this concept.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2010)

searcher said:


> Very good question, IMO!!!      I find it to be best to make the kata work for myself as an individual, rather than what worked for someone else.     I go outside the boundaries of my primary style when it comes to finding kata that work for, not onlymyself, but my students as well.     I have been fortunate enought over the years to have the chance to learn kata from several different systems and incorporate them into my class curriculum.     I have also had to "prune" away some kata form what I teach completely.     I have recently started working with the Ashihara Karate kata and they fit quite nicely into my school and they work very well for my students.     I have never been nor will I ever be opposed to taking what we need from any system and using it to make ourselves better karateka.     I feel that we cannot blindly stick to what was working 50-100+ years ago.     I think the masters of old would agree with this concept.



Do you change moves in the kata to reflect what you would do with it?  That's what I have been doing.  It's still completely recognizable as the original kata, but I make little alterations that help me remember what I want to do with the move.  Thoughts?


----------



## searcher (Dec 19, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Do you change moves in the kata to reflect what you would do with it? That's what I have been doing. It's still completely recognizable as the original kata, but I make little alterations that help me remember what I want to do with the move. Thoughts?


 

On occasion, if the kata does not "feel" right to me I will make some minor changes.     I might change a block or the orientation of a hand(ex. Isshinryu blocking or punching techniques).     I have tried to change the tempo, but it seems that the tempo is timeless.

I setup my kata and sets by what the students need at certain ranks.     I have been making use of sets from EPAK for a long time now, along with Hyungs from TKD, in addition to the kata from my base system(Chito-ryu) and a few of the kata from Isshinryu.     Once I found the kata from Ashihara Karate, I feel like I have found the final piece to what I am teaching.     This may not work for others, but it is working for my students and myself.

I tried to stay traditional and keep the systems I have had the privilage of training in seperate, but I have since decided that it missed what the early karate masters were doing.     They studied what they could from anyone they could and incorporated it into their teachings.     At least that is what I have come to believe.   If you need to change a kata to be better for the times we live in, then I feel it is a good thing to do.     If my students do that, I will applaud them for making it their own.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 19, 2010)

I feel that this is what the kata were designed to do. By staying within the guide lines of the principles of structure, and movement, and not making the kata unrecognizable, we need to explore. Americans are built differently then our Oriental counter parts, so we need to make the bunkai fit us. Some of the best classes are those of freedom of expression.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 19, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Wouldn't it be more traditional to learn the kata, learn the principles, and then practice the kata with the applications that work best for you in mind?



Certainly in my opinion.  Kyan reportedly taught his students differently according to their own strengths and weaknesses, resulting in several variations of kata, right?



maunakumu said:


> What kind of kata do you practice, static lineage kata or individually adapted kata?  Why?



Well, I am more than a little conflicted about this.  I try to practice kata the way I was taught, although certainly I don't do every one exactly like how my teacher does.  I believe forms should be preserved as much as possible, yet I recognize some of the Okinawan masters like Kyan believed the exact opposite.  

Personally, the way it comes out in both teaching and my own practice for me is this:  I play a lot more fast and loose with paired drills built from kata.  IMO (currently ) it's there that individuality and personal adaptation should emerge from, rather than the kata itself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Well, I am more than a little conflicted about this.



LOL!  This describes my mindset as well.  

I attempt to balance tradition and interpretation.  This can be very difficult with the altered kata, but studying the past kata has shown to be very helpful in understanding how things were meant to be.  

When I change things, I often find myself changing things back to the way they originally were.


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2010)

The kata are timeless and do not need to be changed for any reason I can think of.  We have an obligation to pass on to our students the kata as it was taught.

Now having said that,  as *Searcher* stated, changing the kata to match your interpretation gives ownership.  How I view kata  will be different to how others view the same kata and this is natural because some moves flow for some people and are awkward for others.  If kata is to be applicable in a real life situation it must be natural, instinctive and it must flow. So by all means tweak and mould the kata to suit body type, age etc.

If we all take it on ourselves to change the kata, just a little, and we teach our modified kata to our students, they is turn may do the same thing and before you know it, the 'Chinese whispers' effect comes into play and the kata no longer resemble the original.  I believe we deprive our decendents of the opportunity of interpretation we inherited if we change the kata we teach.  :asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 20, 2010)

At what point do you make the change?  It is often pointed out that the "masters" made changes to the kata to reflect a student's ability and attributes.  Those early masters were not concerned about passing on a "style" they just trained students to protect themselves.  They were also very small classes and training was done almost on a one to one basis with those changes from instructor to student.  

I think if you are passing on a style than you need to show the kata as is.  Don't change it and pass it on intact.  But, even if that is your concern create drills and such to show highlights of what can be done differently and reflect your own personal approach.  

One of the things I think is that when we make a change to the kata to fit ourselves and then pass on that change, it may not fit other students, then they make a change from the change and so on until the original information was completely lost.  For example, Gichin Funakoshi made changes to the kata that had NOTHING to do with combat effectiveness.  They were made for aesthetic reasons etc, to give a concrete example,  the kata "Wansu" is known for it's dump (fireman's carry throw) yet in the Shotokan version of Empi this was replaced with a jumping/turning movement.  That information is now lost to future students.

I also think that people change things that they don't know what they are for.  How many times have we seen a move in a kata that we didn't really like and then we see the actual application for it and then it suddenly makes sense?  If we had changed that because we didn't like it or understand that then again that information is lost.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 20, 2010)

I prefer learning the kata as taught by the founder.  There are several reasons I feel this way.

First, I assume that the founder (in my case, Soke Shimabuku Tatsuo) knew more about what he wanted the kata to be used for (bunkai) than is necessarily taught at my junior (brown belt) level.  I don't presume that I know more than he did.

Second, I can change whatever I feel I must change to adapt to my own abilities and inabilities (based on things like weight, age, flexibility, size, etc) after I've learned to do it correctly in the first place.  I feel it is difficult to learn the 'right' way as defined by the founder after having decided to do it one's own way.

Third, I have respect for tradition.  If our tradition was to spit before stepping into the dojo, I'd spit.  I really don't feel the need to be an individual when it comes to that.  I see no harm in following tradition for the sake of tradition.

I understand that different people have different capabilities and limitations.  However, I also feel that sometimes there are very valid reasons why doing something a way that might not be comfortable has value.  For example, I am naturally splay-footed; always have been.  I have difficulty with a good Seisan stance, and Naihanchi is a real challenge for me.  However, I see the value of the toes-straight and toes-in stances and I have some limited understanding of their application.  I will continue to do it 'the right way' and hope that I can eventually modify my abilities, rather than giving up and trying to fit the style to my capabilities.

I have seen with my own eyes what happens as kata is changed by instructors over the years.  I know that Isshin-Ryu is quite splintered and there are significant differences in the way certain kata are done.  I cannot say if this is good or bad; if it negatively affects the application of the techniques contained within the kata or not.  But I know I can see the differences.

I am told there is a group of students who trained under a Sensei of great girth.  They are now themselves instructors.  There are hundreds of students scattered across the USA who do Isshin-Ryu kata with huge sweeping movements which were not in the original kata; they do this to clear their enormous bellies which they do not have; but their instructor's instructor did.  Does it harm the application of the kata?  I have no idea, but I can't guess it does it any good, either.

To give an analogy...

The Jewish Torah is written on a scroll, and it is copied laboriously by hand.  It is over 2,000 years old.  Recent copies have been compared to known examples of very early Torahs, and they are identical.

By contrast, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible have been translated into many languages, and translations have been made of those translations, and different translations have been made when one group disagreed with the translations made by other translations.  Although all versions of the Bible say essentially the same thing, there are still significant differences in some areas; significant enough to cause great turmoil and anger among some groups.  They're all, for lack of a better term, doing kata the way they feel like doing it.  Is it still the 'Word of God'?  They say so, but does that mean it is?


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 20, 2010)

Admittedly most of us have an imperfect grasp of how Okinawan kata came to be used in the transmission of the Okinawan arts. Simply we haven&#8217;t spent 20 years training directly under an instructor who could share the oral history of their art as it was explained to them.

I believe it is logical a kata was developed with a distinct application for a distinct movement. At the same time all kata experienced tidal movement through time so uncountable variations came into existence (as in the 1979 publication on Patsai with 15 distinct versions &#8211; and only a selection at that). 

Why, well for the transmission of non-documented arts, there are no rules. An instructor may prescribe rules, but in time they&#8217;re no longer in charge and change did, does and will occur. I believe most of the reasons change occurred in the past (pre tournament competition reasons) was likely due to a different application possibility the current instructor wanted to study, and the kata then followed the intetnt of the instructor. Been there myself many years ago.

I have a different take today. I really see kata as a study of movement potential and energy release maximization. In that without changing anything every movement of a kata has innumerable applications, to modify kata to study one use, you are focusing on the use.

Look at kata as a way to practice energy release, correct alignment study and movement flow. Separate the technique application analysis from the kata, and practice all of the variations you choose as separate entity studies to learn how to tap the energy developed in the kata. In turn you can practice many movements at full power in kata that you cannot really practice with a partner without damage taking place.

An example of kata technique application analysis can be found on my Isshin Concentration Art blog for *The use of kata technique *

*This is a partial look at the opening of Seisan kata, not the full explanation.*

01 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html 
02 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-ii.html 
03 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-3.html 
04 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-4.html 
05 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-5.html 
06 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-6.html 
07 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-7.html 
08 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-8.html 
09 http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-kata-technique-section-9.html 

Of course those posts represent a lot of work to follow, so it goes.

I covered part of this last Saturday in class for my son (home from college) and one of my long term students. My son keeping track told me about 12 minutes into the initial presentation he saw at least 162 variations on what we were exploring. Each one of which can pound an attack into submission.

If you separate the study of application potential from the kata, there is far less reason to change kata, and you have a whole ton of answers, one&#8217;s you&#8217;re probably not using but are also there too.

Minor note on change. All change has application potential, though many times very different potential.  

Enjoy,


----------



## stone_dragone (Dec 20, 2010)

I personally see value in a middle road.  I feel that it is very historically important to know how a kata was intended to be done by its creator.  In the cases of ancient chinese, old okinawan and newer japanese kata, I have no doubt that the creators had more knowledge about what chellenges that they faced and how to answer those challenges in the context of 1700's through 1800's.  

I refuse to believe, however, that men like Itosu could forsee the conditioning and nutritional improvements, mindsets, social conditions and information availability that would change so dramatically in a few hundred years and a few thousand miles.  Often the attack used in the application then is unrealistic to expect now.  This does NOT give a free license to alter kata though.

In my opinion, you should not alter a kata until you know, for certain, what the accepted inteneded bunkai is for the form.  Once you know what you are supposed to be doing and find it impractical after sufficient practice, then you should identify oyo that works for you and make it the bunkai, adjusting the kata as necessary. [For those not in the know, Bunkai meaning literal application and oyo being a looser interpretation of the movements...if I am wrong, someone please correct me!]

In short, to change a kata, IMO you need to 1) have a solid understanding of the kata and it's accepted bunkai and 2) have a solid and realistic understanding of your current threat set that you need to be prepared for.

As an aside, make sure that you also know what "traditional" means to you.  Many of our "traditional" kata are less than a century old. 

That is all.


----------



## BigRich (Dec 20, 2010)

I've studied other styles where things have been changed and I now train exclusively with a sensai that takes painstaking effort in teaching the kata as historically accurate as possible.  His teacher did the same and his teacher before him.  He tells us to learn the kata as it was developed and teach it as it was developed but as time goes on we make it our own.  

I like that attitude and it's one of the biggest reasons I've trained with him for so many years.  I think everyone should at some point make the kata their own as long as they also practice and teach it the way it was developed.  You never know if what you changed that works for you would work for someone you teach it to five or ten years later.  You have to respect the masters and tradition.


----------



## Ojisan (Dec 20, 2010)

_"In my opinion, you should not alter a kata until you know, for certain, what the accepted inteneded bunkai is for the form. In my opinion, you should not alter a kata until you know, for certain, what the accepted inteneded bunkai is for the form. "_

That's a great premise, but how do you know what the "accepted", "intended" bunkai might be? If using "bunkai" to mean application, then I have seen many accepted applications that either do not make sense from a self defense perspective or are overly complex or unweildly. It also assumes that there is one definative application for a move. That is very limiting.

I tend to side with Victor on the premise that kata primarily address movement and power generation. On the other hand, my study of application has resulted in a few very, very nice applications, some useful and reliable techniques, and a great many movements for which I do not have a clue as to their possible application. 

I persued kata practice for useful applications and found principles of movement and power. Now I search application-based systems such as American kempo for techniques that I can identify in my kata. 

I originally practiced a Shotokan based karate but over the last 15 or so years I have been back-tracking my kata to the older, Okinawan versions. Re-learning the kata and discovering alternative method helped me to see the kata in a different light.

I believe kata are useful for learning applications because the movements are deliberately ambiguous. You have to understand how the various kihon techniques might be utilized in self defense before you can recognize their possibility in the kata. 

The solo practice of kata will inculcate correct principles of movement and the efficient generation of power. The analysis (bunkai) of kata movements with a partner will facilitate the recognition of usefull applications encoded within the kata movements. 

I don't change the kata to suit me so much as the kata change the way in which I do them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2010)

In my case, I learned versions of the kata that were changed in Okinawa, changed when they went to Japan, and then changed when they went to Korea.  In order to practice my art and find value in our kata, I have to study previous versions of the kata so that I can understand why various changes were made.  When I do change something, I often end up changing to something that was done in the past.  

In Tang Soo Do, for example, high level kicks were inserted in places where low level kicks used to be or no kick at all.  Taking those out or changing the level makes sense because I want the kata to help practice valuable self defense skills.


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 20, 2010)

IMO it doesn't matter a great deal why changes were made to the 'kata' you study, though I'm as prejudiced as any to those I practice.

The key to understand how to work on any appliaction potential is to build up a set of underlying principles and use them. I address this in part in those posts I driected you towards on my previous message.

Take a High Kick like the inside crescent kick in my Kusanku kata.  You may find great use in the first 12" of that kick, where you kick like you're doing the high version but after rising 12" it's slamming into someone's calf/lower leg).

My summary from Seisan shows part of the way required. IMO any movement has dozens of ways it can be used, and if you can't use it you need to direct your training to make it work. Essentially 99% of techniques can be inserted into any attack to disrupt it.  The difference is practice, self belief to actually use it and the undestanding you have to practice it against any possible attack.

So don't change the kata, but as there are no rules you might use a technique from the kata but modify the stepping to make it work, depending. Just another example.

Start small, think large and keep practicing.


----------



## TimoS (Dec 20, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> After looking at all of the versions of seisan out there and studying karate for a while, I was wondering why do we practice kata the same way this or that old master practiced it when this or that old master changed the kata to fit his own personal preference?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more traditional to learn the kata, learn the principles, and then practice the kata with the applications that work best for you in mind?  What kind of kata do you practice, static lineage kata or individually adapted kata?  Why?


Are you talking about changing the kata itself or the just applications? 
When we're taught the "basic" bunkai of kata moves, they aren't necessarily very practical in the way they are performed, but we learn them to understand some principles, e.g. how to apply force. These are usually quite fixed. Then, when it comes to real self-defence applications, there is more freedom in how to use the same principles. Everyone sees things a bit differently, so (some of) the applications I teach to e.g. Naifanchi 1 might not be the same that the other instructors would teach, eventhough we've all learned from the same instructors.
If we're talking about changing the actual kata, then I am strictly against it, for many of the reasons already stated here, but also because then it comes impossible for the instructors to keep track of things. Just an extreme, really a nightmare scenario: everyone is doing kata Wansu, but somebody decides that a flying kick is what in his mind should be there as the first move and someone else thinks that no no no, it simply _has_ to be an ukemi followed by a punch to groin etc.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2010)

I suppose if you smaller number of kata you practiced, you could always practice two versions of the same kata.  One would be your interpretation and the other would be the interpretation that teacher passed to you.  I guess the whole idea of changing the kata like they did in the old days is probably not going to sit well with people today.  We've practiced styles for so long that the tradition of passing down master's movements ingrained.  Still, I think there is something different to the way they seemed to practice kata back then.  It strikes me as a fundamental difference, because rather then knowing the purpose of the kata and how they work, we've decided to hold onto the movements as well.  From the material I've read, this wasn't the case in the days of the old masters.

Are we hyper focused on style and taking our eyes off of karate?


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> IMO any movement has dozens of ways it can be used, and if you can't use it you need to direct your training to make it work. *Essentially 99% of techniques can be inserted into any attack to disrupt it. * The difference is practice, self belief to actually use it and the undestanding you have to practice it against any possible attack.
> 
> So don't change the kata, but as there are no rules you might use a technique from the kata but modify the stepping to make it work, depending. Just another example.


So true, yet not at all well known. And what I have found for the 1% (or maybe slightly more) of the techniques that don't seem to work for any given attack, move back one step in the kata and see if including that part makes it work. To finish, sometimes you need to go one further step and if by some chance the technique fails, look to the next step as it will bail you out. In my experience that takes you to pretty much the 100% mark.


----------



## K-man (Dec 20, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I suppose if you smaller number of kata you practiced, you could always practice two versions of the same kata.  One would be your interpretation and the other would be the interpretation that teacher passed to you.


No need to do that. Practise the kata and, in your minds eye, use it for the applications that suit you.  I show my students my interpretations but ask them to develop their own.  If my moves make sense to them, they can use them with my blessing. If they find another explanation that works better for them, great. I might even pinch their application for myself!
Personalise the application of your kata.  It is what works for you, not your instructor. That's why the masters taught different applications to different people dependent on their physical attributes. 
I can understand why the masters didn't bother learning all the different kata.  It is even worse teaching multiple kata for grade requirements because you could spend years exploring just one.


----------



## TimoS (Dec 21, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I suppose if you smaller number of kata you practiced, you could always practice two versions of the same kata.  One would be your interpretation and the other would be the interpretation that teacher passed to you.


I know e.g. Joen Nakazato sensei taught that you should have sort three versions of the kata, one which you learn exactly as it is taught, one that is your "interpratation" of it and one that is sort of in the middle of those two. I can't remember the naming he gave to those kata versions, but I seem to remember it came from calligraphy.


----------



## stone_dragone (Dec 21, 2010)

In light of this thread, and having talked about "ideal", just a quick note about how I've actually been doing it!  I just had this conversation with the fellow who's running my dojo at home the other day.

When I started under our instructor in the system that he taught us, as taught by his instructor in a karate style named Nahate Goju Ryu.  The forms that we learned are a combination of shotokan kata done with Goju philosophy and Goju kata done with shotokan stances.  As far as I understood, what we did WAS goju. Period.  It was what he was taught and what he taught us, and since we were effective in the ring and on the street, we didn't worry about it.

A few years later I had researched, studied and trained in other places, I came more and more to the realization that 1) We weren't doing Goju Ryu.  2) Our kata weren't "right" because they weren't being done the way other folks were doing them.

Now, having been around a few more years, I have come full circle. While I acknowledge that the way we learned our forms didn't match how they were originally done, they do teach what I want my students to know.  Each movement has a direct bunkai that works.  I will teach the forms the way my master taught me, and let my students know that there are other ways to do them.  

In relation to forms, always ask yourself "What am I doing?"  If what you're doing isn't what you're doing, then what _are_ your doing?


----------



## Sojobo (Dec 21, 2010)

Kata is never static - it should always be "alive" and have the ability to change with every action and situation imo. If kata is not alive it becomes "Igata" which is dead and has little purpose. 

The problem is (particularly with us here in the west) very few people truly understand how make kata work (from an educational position - not bunkai) - ie keeping it "alive" and getting it to work for you - whilst maintaining the integrity of the kata and therefore the reason for its creation / evolution in the first place. 

This is where a good instructor and the educational process of "*Shu-ha-ri*" comes into its own as it does with a number of Japanese traditions (not just martial arts). Without this you haven&#8217;t a hope of getting from point A to point B in any system with a kata based pedagogy imo. 

Furthermore, the value of the individual kata becomes more and more eroded as it is passed from one person to another. 

Sojobo


----------



## K-man (Dec 22, 2010)

Sojobo said:


> Kata is never static - it should always be "alive" and have the ability to change with every action and situation imo. If kata is not alive it becomes "Igata" which is dead and has little purpose.
> 
> The problem is (particularly with us here in the west) very few people truly understand how make kata work (from an educational position - not bunkai) - ie keeping it "alive" and getting it to work for you - whilst maintaining the integrity of the kata and therefore the reason for its creation / evolution in the first place.
> 
> ...


I cannot tell a lie. This is lifted straight from Wikipedia (not a Wikileak!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)



> Aikido master Endo Seishiro shihan stated:
> "It is known that, when we learn or train in something, we pass through the stages of _shu_, _ha_, and _ri_. These stages are explained as follows. In _shu_, we repeat the forms and discipline ourselves so that our bodies absorb the forms that our forebearers created. We remain faithful to the forms with no deviation. Next, in the stage of _ha_, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in _ri_, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws."​


So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited. :asian:​


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 22, 2010)

K-man said:


> So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited. :asian:​



I agree 100%.

My thought is that you (figuratively) change the kata you should probably pick a new name.  If I suddenly decided to add high kicks to Saifa, for example, the kata should no longer be called Saifa.  Likewise, the karate shouldn't be termed Okinawan Goju-ryu either.

This seems fair.  Informed students will know you are teaching something else, and you'll have an honest opportunity to teach whatever you want.


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 22, 2010)

I'm not in favor of changing kata but if an instructor is so inspired I do hope their changes work in their view.

Students are not traning to learn the kata you were taught. The only thing a student is being shaped towards is to break what wicked comes their way.  

Of course I came from an environment where my instructors literally shared many different variations on each kata, as did Shimabuku Tatsuo on occassion. 

Oftimes the kata changes are very minor in nature, in fact if you took someone from a different tradition they might be hard pressed to see any difference, though those in that tradition feel the opposite.

But change has a very positive purpose. We exist because CHANGE is the reality of the world. In fact the truest change is to take something designed for one thing, change nothing and successfully fit the tool into a very differen attack.

Change to kata is not the end of the world, IMVHO. Not reacting to the reality of change is a more serious problem.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 22, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Students are not traning to learn the kata you were taught. The only thing a student is being shaped towards is to break what wicked comes their way.



Hmm, I'll disagree to an extent.  I do tell my students that I am teaching 'traditional' Okinawan karate the way I was taught myself.  I've had some students join my dojo expressly for this reason.

We all train for different purposes.  Like you I feel self-defense is the highest goal, but I also have a secondary goal of transmitting the karate and kobudo I was taught myself to the best to my ability to a next generation.  If I add something new or if I am imparting somewhat of my own spin on things, I'll make it a point to pass that along too that it comes from a different source.


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 22, 2010)

Hi Dancing,

Well on Okinawa everything was Okinawan karate and in the prior days there was no record of how anything did anything. There are multiple variations of the kata, such as the published 15 versions of Patsai, and somebody had to changes things. In doing so they didn't lose Okinawan karate (for everything was Okinawan karate) and in earlier days many didn't become instructors until after their instructor's death. Watch the variations between Kyan's students.

It's not impossible the true tradition was everything changes, and change in all Okinawan karate is the only constant?

I don't know. In my case my instructors trained on Okinawa in 60 and 72 and from their studies, direct observations of what was being taught and tracking returning students what they did, ended up with many variations on the kata. I was taught a bit of them.

In turn I could teach many different variations but choose not to. But after 37 years sometimes I begin a kata with one variation and inadvertently end with another, both pure style from what I was taught. I don't teach that way but it still happens.

And there are no rules, though it sometimes would be nice if there were. I really don't pay attention to what others in my 'style' do, I only track from my instructors, but not having been taught there was a right way, instead that you must work to take the way you do it right, I'm less concerned with change occurring. I've had to deal with that from my first day.

Then again I don't bunkai either. I was never taught any 'bunkai' and in turn I can take a movement and work it successfully with dozen's of applications from my own efforts. Bunkai seems to restrictive. If that's the way you were taught, cool, I've just had to follow a different path.

Seems to me if there was a right way, and the instructor didn't document it for everyone's reference, then they created the actual situation, not the instructor following them.

When you train the same people for 20 or 30 years you'll find they get many different paths from you, one as right and pure as the next.

pleasantly,


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Hi Dancing,
> 
> Well on Okinawa everything was Okinawan karate and in the prior days there was no record of how anything did anything. There are multiple variations of the kata, such as the published 15 versions of Patsai, and somebody had to changes things. In doing so they didn't lose Okinawan karate (for everything was Okinawan karate) and in earlier days many didn't become instructors until after their instructor's death. Watch the variations between Kyan's students.
> 
> ...



This seems to contradict what you said earlier about not changing the kata, Victor.

Incidentally, I like what you are saying here.  In the old days, individuals interpreted the kata and the variations naturally appeared.  Perhaps the obverse of that statement is that in our days, the concept of style erases the individual?  

From what I now, IMVHO, I see all karate as karate.  All of the families trace back to a small archipelago off of China.  It's remarkable that we get to practice this art the way that we do.  No matter what form it takes, we share that binding root.  That's really cool.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 22, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Hi Dancing,
> Seems to me if there was a right way, and the instructor didn't document it for everyone's reference, then they created the actual situation, not the instructor following them.
> 
> When you train the same people for 20 or 30 years you'll find they get many different paths from you, one as right and pure as the next.
> ...



I look at it as trying to keep the same conditions the same as possible.  If my teacher is an excellent martial artist and I would like to attempt the same level of skill, it makes sense for me to try to duplicate his process as much as possible, at least in the 'formative' stages of learning.  We are different people with different bodies so definitely there is bound to be some changes and variations as I attempt to follow his path and that is fine.  The real question is when does that fork in the road occur?

My assumption is that you shouldn't diverge until you've learned and practiced the way your teacher did.  Afterwards, you can decided what is best for yourself, and following the same logic, the same should be said of your students.  Give them the chance as best as you can to learn what you did.


----------



## Sojobo (Dec 22, 2010)

K-man said:


> I cannot tell a lie. This is lifted straight from Wikipedia (not a Wikileak!! )





K-man said:


> So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited.


 
That's where the good teacher comes in.

Here is an excellent essay entitled "Teaching and Shu-ha-ri". It is by Takamura Yukio headmaster of the Takamura ha branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu.

In it, he details the pros and cons of teaching within the various different stages of Shu-ha ri. Its a bit wordy but well worth a read.

http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_TeachingShuHaRi.htm

Worth bearing in mind though that Shindo Yoshin-ryu is a Nihon Koryu Bujutsu as opposed to an Okinawan karate. 

Maybe the value / importance of Shu-ha-ri within Japanese martial traditions differ to that of Okinawan Karate?

Sojobo


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 22, 2010)

Maunakumu.

I don't think it's as much a contradiction as the reality our brief posts cannot share the full experience.  My instructors trained in Okinawa (one as a beginner in 59-60, one as a sho-dan in 72).  They experiened what Shimabuku Tatsuo offered not I. Isshinryu's founder had to make choices to train US Marines in a very short time, he did not speak English and as I see it I don't do Okinawan karate (I didn't train there) but Karate that originated in Okinawa.

My observations why Okinawan kata change in large part is from the Patsai material, where the embusen remained but the technique selection varied obviously on different answers what was happening.

While I try to observe what small pieces of Okinawan karate exist I am firmly on the side it's for the Okinawan's to define their history, so I just try and observe with less judgment, at what they do show.

My original instructors never tried to define the 'right' kata performance, instead focusing on how to train to make the version(s) you acquired work as efficienlty as possible. 

Why did all those Patsai instructors change, why did Kyan change what he taught, why did all of Kyan's students who became instructor not standardize what they saw, What was Shimabuku's reason he taught differently for different studens, or at different times  continue to modify what he was teaching? Can't say, and most of the reasons are in the end totally undocumented except for oral histories.

thoughts,


----------



## K-man (Dec 22, 2010)

Sojobo said:


> That's where the good teacher comes in.
> 
> Here is an excellent essay entitled "Teaching and Shu-ha-ri". It is by Takamura Yukio headmaster of the Takamura ha branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu.
> 
> ...



As you state, this is an excellent article. I doubt that it will receive the attention it deserves within this thread so could I ask you to initiate a new thread perhaps entitled Shu-ha-ri so that we could study it further?  Thank you for the post.


----------



## Sojobo (Dec 22, 2010)

K-man said:


> As you state, this is an excellent article. I doubt that it will receive the attention it deserves within this thread so could I ask you to initiate a new thread perhaps entitled Shu-ha-ri so that we could study it further? Thank you for the post.


 
Not really a lot of point in that K-man, as it is entirely appropriate in this thread and pretty much gets to the nub of things imo.

Sojobo


----------



## chinto (Dec 28, 2010)

ok, (climbs up on his soap box, looks around and screems! ) " THIS NO NEVER CHANGE!!!! "

ok.. now look folks. the old masters were very very good at staying alive in a fight to the death.. ( by the way folks any fight on the street should be considered one today till shown other wise to be. )

you should not change the kata at all. there should be at least 5 techniques and as many bunkai for every technique practacly and maybe more for every move in the kata... you just have to see it.  THEY WERE TRYING TO TEACH YOU A HUGE AMOUNT IN A SMALL PACKAGE!!  you can play with them, but do not modify how they are taugth. teach them and then if you must teach a modified one after they learn the real one.


Kata is your art. its how its passed down. there are doctrines and things that they teach you about movement and things in there that most dont notice.


----------



## Meibukanadian (Dec 30, 2010)

As a relative newbie in the martial arts, I personally am hesitant to deviate from the forms set out by those who dedicated their lives to their arts. If I do not understand certain aspects of a kata, I ask those wiser than me, and just work at it myself until some understanding is found.

However, as stated by many of my fellow posters, kata must be a living thing. But I think that its life can be found within the framework that it was created, as long as one looks hard enough. Just because we can't immediately see it, doesn't mean that a given kata isn't very much alive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 31, 2010)

How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system?  They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another.  If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata?  I think the old masters saw it this way.  They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another.  They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.

On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques.  One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental.  A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.


----------



## Sojobo (Dec 31, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques. One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental. A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.


 
I understand what you are saying, however on the other hand, perhaps any kata is only as old as the last time you practiced it?

sojobo


----------



## TimoS (Dec 31, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system?  They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another.  If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata?  I think the old masters saw it this way.  They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another.  They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.


True, but you have to keep in mind that before they made the changes, they first learned the kata inside and out the way their sensei taught it. It is only after they started teaching on their own that they would make their own mark on the kata. You can be sure that e.g. when Kyan was practising under Matsumura, he was doing the kata exactly as Matsumura taught (on a semi-unrelated note, it has been speculated that since Matsumura was already quite old when Kyan was his student, that the actual teaching would have been carried out by Azato).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 31, 2010)

TimoS said:


> True, but you have to keep in mind that before they made the changes, they first learned the kata inside and out the way their sensei taught it. It is only after they started teaching on their own that they would make their own mark on the kata. You can be sure that e.g. when Kyan was practising under Matsumura, he was doing the kata exactly as Matsumura taught (on a semi-unrelated note, it has been speculated that since Matsumura was already quite old when Kyan was his student, that the actual teaching would have been carried out by Azato).



I, personally, think that if anyone even thinks about changing a move or altering anything, this is the way to go.  You've got to put in the time to really understand what you are doing.  This is a great point, IMO.


----------



## stone_dragone (Dec 31, 2010)

I can appreciate those who come from a lineage that has preserved their kata unchanged for many generations feeling that they should stay unchanged.  If you are learning the kata as the founder taught it, then there's little reason to change it.

How about those who are from a lineage that has changed the kata, whether recently or a few generations ago?  The forms are not the original ones that was developed.  Do you still teach the kata as learned?  If you have no other frame of reference and are teaching it as you learned it, then you are doing it right.  But what if you gain additional insight?  Do you teach the kata as originally written or as you were originally taught?

Teaching it as written would constitute changing the kata from what you learned... So then do you change the kata from what you learned or keep the change from what was written?


----------



## chinto (Jan 1, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system? They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another. If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata? I think the old masters saw it this way. They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another. They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.
> 
> On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques. One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental. A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.


 

ok, are you saying that what they taught and tested in life and death encounters is now some how invalid because things some how changed??

IF so I would have to ask when we grew a new arm or what changed a fight from even say 3000BC?? 

my opinion is contained in the quote that is part of my signature.   mainly that 15,000BC or today, a fight is the same. we have not changed, so unarmed fights have not changed.


----------



## Guliufa (May 18, 2011)

I believe that every single technique in kata is useful. 

The movement in the kata teaches the principles of the mechanics and dynamics and don't necessarily have one application or specific use of the application. 

The "fit you" concept reminds me of whole Bruce Lee crap that the MMA crowd seems to believe about "take what is useful and discard the rest". It makes me nauseous whenever I see this. There is NOTHING in Kata that is useless.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2011)

In my Isshinryu training, at which I am only a beginner, I am told three things.

First: we do the kata we are taught to the best of our ability the way we are taught it.  That means if we are unable for physical reasons to hit a particular posture or stance, we do what we can do, to the best of our ability.  This is acceptable.

Second: there is lots of lots of bunkai inside the kata, and it is not wrong to practice kata in a way that demonstrates the intended application; but this is not 'kata', this is bunkai.

Third: From our teacher's teacher - he, and we, are not authorized to change the kata.  Period.

In reality, I am aware that historically the kata has been 'cleaned up' by various first-generation students of Shimabuku Soke, and in different ways.  The kata practiced today are not all the same, obviously.  However, I am told that *I am not authorized to change the kata*.  All other discussions are purely for mental exercise, this is a directive and I understand it.  That is all I need to know, and I will follow those instructions.  Period, end of discussion, no further inquiries of my instructors needed.  I hear and obey.


----------



## Victor Smith (May 18, 2011)

Bill,  

Isshinryu is such a delight fully obtuse system. It's founder did change the kata by the student. Both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Harrill explained they witnessed this. (it's far more complex as at different times he changed many things). A different friend always maintained Isshinryu may well be only what Shimabuku Sensei taught (and the result may be Isshinryu(2). 

Just to confuse the issue.

I've been rereading the entire issue. Really teaching kata you mold the student towards the kata potential, but as life changes we all change and in time the kata molds to us (say 30 or so years).

Kata have never been static, except for when your instructor tells you so (and then your instructor is always correct - for you).


----------



## punisher73 (May 19, 2011)

I think there are a couple of reasons that kata "change".  One that I have not seen addressed on the thread.

The founder of the style was ever evolving and growing as a martial artist as well.  Sometimes we look at the founder like he suddenly "arrived" and had everything set in stone.  All of the greats in ANY martial art all had one thing in common, and that was a dedicated personal study.  They were bound to learn more about what they were sharing and figure things out or further refine how to transmit that information.

Even when looking at an "american" art like Ed Parker's kenpo.  Look at the MANY arguments about what is really the kenpo that SGM Parker taught.  Why is this?  Because all of them studied at different times in his personal evolution and didn't stay through all of it.  

Also, the PURPOSE of what their focus was will change the kata.  For example, in Aikido, if you look at the earlier techniques of Ueshiba it was alot harder and many of the techniques involved pressure point striking with a one knuckle fist (look at his book "Budo" and the pictures) and grabbing the attacker first to apply the lock.  Also, from earlier student accounts when Ueshiba would grab onto you, his grip was so strong he would leave bruises.  How does that compare with the spiritual route that he emphasized later in his life?  Think about early Okinawan karate and how much was lost after WW2, do you think that somethings changed for them?  How much changed because many teachers didn't have time to practice karate because they were too busy trying to stay alive for those war years.  We see the same changes made to karate by Itosu and Funakoshi when they made alterations to the katas for teaching others.

Again, every art I have ever read the history of changed as it went along either in focus or as the founder/inheritor refined their own personal study and approach.  The only time an art stops is when the founder dies.  When this happens, we see that the art is frozen in place at wherever the founder was at with his studies.  Then we get all the arguments about who is teaching the "real art" or who knew all of the information that the founder had etc.


----------



## TimoS (May 19, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Think about early Okinawan karate and how much was lost after WW2, do you think that somethings changed for them?


Actually, I think it is pretty much a myth, ("sold" especially by those who are selling their newly discovered "secret" stuff), that much of the Okinawan karate was lost due to WW2. Just an example or two: 


Shorin ryu Seibukan, formed Zenryo Shimabukuro, based on what he learned from Chotoku Kyan. Kyan died after WW2, but Zenryo sensei trained with him all through WW2.
Kanbun Uechi started teaching around 1925 (according to Wikipedia) and did so all during the war.
Sure, Okinawan karate has changed from the early days, due to the popularity of the art, but I don't believe the inside has changed and that's what matters.


----------



## punisher73 (May 19, 2011)

TimoS said:


> Actually, I think it is pretty much a myth, ("sold" especially by those who are selling their newly discovered "secret" stuff), that much of the Okinawan karate was lost due to WW2. Just an example or two:
> 
> 
> Shorin ryu Seibukan, formed Zenryo Shimabukuro, based on what he learned from Chotoku Kyan. Kyan died after WW2, but Zenryo sensei trained with him all through WW2.
> ...


 
Kanbun Uechi lived in Japan and taught there until 1948, not in Okinawa. Read through the histories, many people talked about losing their top students to the war. I didn't say ALL was lost during the war, just that there was alot lost. And I also didn't say that no one taught or practiced karate during those years, but many did stop.

Also, Zenryo Shimabukuro did not study with Kyan during WW2 because the training had stopped. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenry%C5%8D_Shimabukuro ).  Kyan died in Sept. of 1945, about a month after Japan surrendered.  There wasn't alot of training going on for Shimabukuro with Kyan after the war.


----------



## harlan (May 19, 2011)

I practice the kata as I'm taught. That being said, I do think that minor things have been 'tweaked' by my teachers in order to bring out the unifying principles in the kata. Making it more of 'system', so to speak.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 19, 2011)

searcher said:


> Very good question, IMO!!! I find it to be best to make the kata work for myself as an individual, rather than what worked for someone else. I go outside the boundaries of my primary style when it comes to finding kata that work for, not onlymyself, but my students as well. I have been fortunate enought over the years to have the chance to learn kata from several different systems and incorporate them into my class curriculum. I have also had to "prune" away some kata form what I teach completely. I have recently started working with the Ashihara Karate kata and they fit quite nicely into my school and they work very well for my students. I have never been nor will I ever be opposed to taking what we need from any system and using it to make ourselves better karateka. I feel that we cannot blindly stick to what was working 50-100+ years ago. I think the masters of old would agree with this concept.


 
The OP was an excellent question, and this was an excellent response.  Kata are a catalog of principles as well as movements for an art.  To this end, we need to make sure we have an understanding of those principles and movements.  When an instructor has that understanding it is not only important, but imperative to make modifications when necessary.  Not to make changes 'just because', but when it is necessary;

To address an specific injury a student may have that would limit their ability to perform a particular movement.
To address as specific handicap of a student.
To address a students strengths or weaknesses.
As we get older our abilities change.
In regards to the last on my list, I'm dramatically stronger now than I was at half my age due to my power lifting/body building training.  But my flexability is less due to various injuries over the years.  Whereas 'once upon a time' I could execute a pretty decent high kick, nowadays I'm just as likely to kick you right in the ankle   So why train in something that I'm simply not likely or not able to do?  

Same for my students.  I have ALWAYS adjusted our forms and/or drills to tailor fit each student in my class.  I'm not looking for 'cookie-cutter' perfection, rather I'm looking for complete functionality.  

We have designed over the last decade just one form (Hyung or Kata) for our Kwan.  It consists of 25 principle movements that address common forms of attack/defense.  Each movement is usable either at typical arms-length fighting distance or at grappling range.  Many are useable whether standing or on the ground.  Each movement has a 'skeleton' but that is then tailored to each student based upon their individual needs.  



> I think the masters of old would agree with this concept


 
I agree that a lot of them would have expected this of their senior students.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Aug 6, 2011)

It is more traditional to learn two person drills (analysis/applications) before learning kata, recording the self-defense techniques into templates. If practice that way Karate can further develop itself, and change certain techniques in katas if necessary, if not, Karate would stagnate.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 8, 2011)

I guess it depends on what you want to call traditional. Kyan Chotoku only taught kata and did not teach distinct applications. That tradition was the basis transmitted to his students who in turn formed systems in the 50's.  Tradition varies with each instructor over and over. The Okinawan arts did to an extent draw upon a pool of shared knowledge, they after all did live on a small island, but karate wasn't developed for concrete need of self defense and until the modern era wasn't shared openly. It was more a private upper class sharing, and to what extent two person drills played into the study is difficult to ascertain.  In more current times things keep changing, karate's true tradition.


----------



## TimoS (Aug 8, 2011)

Victor Smith said:


> Kyan Chotoku only taught kata and did not teach distinct applications


I find that hard to believe. I've seen e.g. some of the applications in Passai by students of Nakazato Joen sensei and they were identical to the ones taught to us in Seibukan. To me that indicates that the applications derive from the same root, i.e. Kyan Chotoku.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 8, 2011)

Timo,

I'm relying on one of Joen Nakazato's students for that information. Further bolstered by Dan Smith of the Seibukan who maintains the same point. I wasn't there but trust my friends. That doesn't mane Nakazato's students don't work on applications just that Kyan only focused on the kata in his teachings.

The undocumented past always remains an issue but to date I still trust their experiences.


----------

