# Modification-right or wrong?



## Hand Sword (Jun 24, 2007)

We practitoners of the Kem/npo systems and their derivatives study styles that have been modified to fit the needs of the American enviroments. Through their evolution, they have taken what was at one time the traditional way of doing things and have altered them a bit. Recently I've been reading about this topic and getting a few different sides. What I will focus on is the argument of "it's not done the same way!". As an example of the argument is a Kempo practitoner doing a form that was copied from a shaolin monk. The movements were the same in terms of the techniques, but, it was supposedly done in a "Kempo" manner. There was a "downing" of this, pointing out the differences and what was lacking in the Kempo manner, upon comparison. Is this right to focus on? What really is important while learning and executing the material? Should it be done exactly as it was taught? Or, is it O.K. to modify things? Isn't about making it "yours" anyway?


----------



## jdinca (Jun 25, 2007)

"Making it yours" is appropriate. Where I see an issue is whether, or not making it yours is still true to the system/style it came from. Taking a northern style form and doing it in a kenpo fashion means it is no longer a northern form, nor is it a kenpo form. It no longer looks like a CMA form, nor are the movements necessarily what they were supposed to be when it was done as a chinese form. To change it at all, you need to know what was being done in the form in the first place. Some of the things that are done in CMA are not done in kenpo and would also have to be changed. It wouldn't be a kenpo form because it was not developed using the underlying principles of kenpo. Yes, most of the principles are the same but there are differences as to how they're applied.

Just one example, a punch from a forward bow. In a northern system, the forward bow is a longer stance and the shoulder that is throwing the punch is extended forward until the shoulders are at a 45 degree angle. In kenpo, the stance is shorter, more solid and the shoulders are not turned nearly as much. The guard hand in CMA will be below the arm, as opposed to above the arm, guarding the head. As a result, you have the same technique looking very different. 

Our system is a more chinese style of kenpo but we also pretty much have a parallel track in CMA. As a result, I need to keep in mind that when I'm doing a chinese form, I need to make some changes so that it fits the style I'm doing. My abilities and the way I move will "make it mine" but the style of the form will still be true to the system the form came from.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 25, 2007)

I'd say modification isn't just right, it's _essential_.  Kenpo isn't about rote memorization (whatever the charts might imply), but about the intelligent application of principles.

Every student reaches a point where she is able to effortlessly alter a technique to suit the situation.  Every student reaches a point where the technique as written is unsuitable for him on account of one limitation or another.  Every student reaches a point of creation and innovation within the art.

The creation of Kenpo was simply doing the same thing we ask of our advanced students daily.  Modification is a key trait of the advanced martial artist, and any art should reflect this fact.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 25, 2007)

If it works, do it. Period.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Jun 25, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> If it works, do it. Period.


 
I totally agree here ... 

Every art has to evolve and has. I'm no historian on the arts, but let's just start with Bodhidarma, Buddhist monk from India who is credited with teaching at the Shaolin temple. So, can someone out there provide proof that the art, as taught by him, is still being taught exactly as it was way back then? No way, no how ... it has evolved and will continue to evolve, or it will die. This is true to each and eery art out there. If for no other reason than the one already given by others, humans bodies are different, movements evolve for that simple fact. Each person does them slightly different, no matter how slight that difference. 



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> If it works, do it. Period.


 
However, there needs to be a reason. I do not agree to some that change things only to say they are different, but can not show the change to be effective.

Just my two cents, again ... 



Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> If it works, do it. Period.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 25, 2007)

We had a great discussion about this not long ago. May be applicable :idunno:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47787&highlight=tradition+evolution+poll


----------



## Drac (Jun 25, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> If it works, do it. Period.


 


14 Kempo said:


> I totally agree here ...


 
Although I am not a student of kempo, this thread is of interest to me..I have had to make modifications to all the disciplines I am familiar with so they work while on duty..Us to stand in a bladed stance withe my right side forward..Now that I have a firearm on that side I had to redo that way of thinking....


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 25, 2007)

14 Kempo said:


> I totally agree here ...
> 
> Every art has to evolve and has. I'm no historian on the arts, but let's just start with Bodhidarma, Buddhist monk from India who is credited with teaching at the Shaolin temple. So, can someone out there provide proof that the art, as taught by him, is still being taught exactly as it was way back then? No way, no how ... it has evolved and will continue to evolve, or it will die. This is true to each and eery art out there. If for no other reason than the one already given by others, humans bodies are different, movements evolve for that simple fact. Each person does them slightly different, no matter how slight that difference.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly.


----------



## tellner (Jun 25, 2007)

This weekend Guru Plinck had his third annual Silat seminar. Most of the people there were his old students. Two are in the 75th Rangers out of Fort Lewis, home on leave from Iraq. 

We did a lot of ground fighting this time. It was Minang Harimau Silat, not submission wrestling or BJJ. A few times he demonstrated something and gave modified versions for the soldiers. Some things just don't work as well when you are carrying sixty pounds of equipment and need to be modified.

He wasn't "betraying" his martial arts or anything like that. He was responding to a serious need on the part of his students by changing specifics so that they would work in the world those guys had to live and fight in.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 25, 2007)

Thank you all. :asian: I agree as well with all of the above. However, would all of this apply to taking on and doing the forms of other styles as well? We all have them in our styles. Should they be done as they are done in their original style? Is it ok to do a CMA form in a kempo manner, and still refer to it as that form?


----------



## jdinca (Jun 26, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Thank you all. :asian: I agree as well with all of the above. However, would all of this apply to taking on and doing the forms of other styles as well? We all have them in our styles. Should they be done as they are done in their original style? Is it ok to do a CMA form in a kempo manner, and still refer to it as that form?


 
I guess it all depends on what your goal is. If you want to honor the art the form came from, if it's an old art and you like performing a piece of history, then I would say do it as close to the way it was intended to be done as you can. 

If you like to "play" with forms from different styles, that's your choice too but in that situation, I would no longer consider it to be a form from that style. I even take that to the point of adding other CMA styles into a CMA form. 

The first CMA form I learned for competition was Plum Flower Fist as it's done in T'ein Shan Pai. I got my butt kicked by competitors from a school who did the same form, but had added a modern wushu flair to it. Plenty of flashy jumps and butterfly kicks looked good but it was no longer the same form and it was obvious that the practitioners didn't know what the techniques in the form were. They just learned the movement and made it pretty and athletic. It looked good but it had no "soul". They had "made it their own" but the changes they had made to do so took the self defense "lessons" out of the form and it no longer made sense.

As for kenpo, most of our school's forms come from the Tracy system but there are significant differences. As a result, we don't consider them Tracy forms, we consider them to be Bok Fu Do forms. The large majority of them don't even have the same name. You can see the basis from Tracy but the "flavor" and the style of movement is pure Bok Fu Do. 

Every one is entitled to do as they see fit but that's my .02 cents.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Early on martial arts had a semi clear purpose of being useable.  Now, there are other purposes such as "enlightment", exercise, teaching children discipline, etc.  Also there is an increased focus on maintaining the "integrity" of an art by passing it down exactly as it was learned.  The problem is that the "why" got lost.  Passing the art down "exactly as it was learned" was because it was believed that what was being passed down worked.  Nowadays some things are being passed down "exactly as is" just because.  There are movements that we can prove are inefficient, have no scientifically provable basis for execution, have no further use in todays environment, or just downright don't work still being passed on in the name of tradition.  This is fine if it is known that the arts purpose is more for the art side than any combat application.  Unfortunately alot of fluff and stuff that has little to no bearing on actual combat effectiveness is being passed off as if it does.

If it works, do it.  Period.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 26, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> We practitoners of the Kem/npo systems and their derivatives study styles that have been modified to fit the needs of the American enviroments. Through their evolution, they have taken what was at one time the traditional way of doing things and have altered them a bit. Recently I've been reading about this topic and getting a few different sides. What I will focus on is the argument of "it's not done the same way!". As an example of the argument is a Kempo practitoner doing a form that was copied from a shaolin monk. The movements were the same in terms of the techniques, but, it was supposedly done in a "Kempo" manner. There was a "downing" of this, pointing out the differences and what was lacking in the Kempo manner, upon comparison. Is this right to focus on? What really is important while learning and executing the material? Should it be done exactly as it was taught? Or, is it O.K. to modify things? Isn't about making it "yours" anyway?


First of all, you have to realize that you modify for a reason. A form done for power will look different that a form done for speed. A form done for both speed and power will, again, look different. If someone pops up with, "thats wrong" ask them to explain why.
sean


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> First of all, you have to realize that you modify for a reason. A form done for power will look different that a form done for speed. A form done for both speed and power will, again, look different. If someone pops up with, "thats wrong" ask them to explain why.
> sean


 
Now Sean, you know no one cares about why. HOW is where it's at


----------



## LawDog (Jun 29, 2007)

Any changes that can be justified with tactical theory, geographical or social issues is correct.
:ultracool


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 29, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> First of all, you have to realize that you modify for a reason. *A form done for power will look different that a form done for speed. A form done for both speed and power will, again, look different*. If someone pops up with, "thats wrong" ask them to explain why.
> sean


 
Ayup. Different types of power, or delivery for various reasons will also affect appearence. Working with a student from another lineage for the last couple weeks, we started exploring 5 Swords, Thundering Hammers, and Hooking Wings from different "intents". When the intent is absolute solidity, burying each strike as deeply as you can either into or through the opponent, subtle distributions in intra-stance pressures, body "english", path and line, points of origin and selected orbits are notably different than when we focus on the strike- and contact-manipulation components, dissipation of attack momentum (with depth deception) before attacking in the lull, speed, depth penetration, or rapid dispatch & release. 

"Let's take a look at Five Swords again, but this time with an emphasis on..." leads to very different appearences. Looks like an entirely different technique. We did the same with SF2 and L2 segments, and they too look very different depending on emphasis. Then we go back and try to instill the differences into a more global/encompassing training version that will hang on to some of the differences explored in isolation.

I emboldened this particular part of youe quote and included my silly comments because I thought it bore emphasis; I see waaaayyy too many kenpoists doing everything with the exact same meter and tone, regardless of the purpose of the technique or form. A reverse bow used for tripping someone in a palm heel take down is pretty much the same foot orientation as a reverse bow used to accompany a back hammerfist, but the change in purpose should accompany changes in tension, which in turn will change the appearance of the execution.

Be good,

Dr. Dave


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 2, 2007)

I'm also a fan of making things work for you, so modify away if you're experienced enough to understand why you're making the changes.  At the same time, I do think you should use entirely new names for your new creation.   I can see why it would raise some people's hackles if you perform a set in a totally different way yet you still use the original name for it.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 4, 2007)

I know a mutodori (sword-taking) technique supposedly designed to exploit the way a sword was worn by members of the Satsuma-han in the Edo period. Back then, it was sometimes the practice to keep a cord or strip of paper that tying the sword to the saya, creating a slight delay when drawing it. This was to keep Satsuma-han samurai from making trouble, because the tie would remind them that maybe they shouldn't use their swords whenever something irked them.

Anyone carrying a sword this way would often use another technique to create distance while drawing.

The technique is obsolete *for that purpose* but it teaches a valid principle: to avoid a strike and step to the outside, then apply pressure against the followup. Classically, you get to the outside of a strike and step in to intercept the draw with maximum economy of motion. Nowadays, it works pretty wall against a big right hand followed by a gap when the other guy rorients and grabs. But without a weapon, the movements are different -- more staccato and furtive. You need to bring in the rest of your game, hitting, pushing and shoving to impose your own rhythm on the situation.

You can *only* learn this by drilling the technique in a live situation, moving, shifting around and so on. And in the end, this is why the technique exists. The historical element is just a way to create a moving "thought experiment," arbitrary enough to require your own study and contribution. This is, I think, the way these things should be done.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 4, 2007)

I agree with all. The point of the thread was simply to ask the question is it ok for one style to adopt anothers ways or some, like the Kenpo systems have, and do it in a "kenpo manner" ? Does it hurt the "purity" or make it illegitimate. From some other places I've seen that exact argument. Funny enough it came from people who do that very thing, but, got very defensive about it, when it was "Shaolin forms". Apparently they should be done exactly as the abbott and the monks would or else it's pointless and not recognized as a Shaolin form, even though the movements are the same.


----------



## Doc (Jul 5, 2007)

The issue of modification is a product born primarily of modern day martial arts self defense businesses. Under these guidelines, particular in most Kenpo interpretations, modifications are mandated because of the loose structure of the material, and its underlying mandate of personal self defense. 

In other words, it's your butt and ultimately you should be able to change anything that you feel will work better for you in the street. There is nothing wrong with this. However, it is important that everyone be aware they are not 'evolving' whatever art they have chosen. They are evolving themselves, and their own understanding and execution of that art. 

All martial artist do this. Unfortunately only in the martial arts business do students think they have the knowledge and skill to actually 'evolve' someone else's work. Of course to do that would require they have at least the bulk of the knowledge of the sources of the art. 

So let's evolve ourselves, and improve our skill and knowledge, while we personally interpret our lessons. Remember, the further you are from the source, the least likely you are to have their knowledge or be qualified to evolve their creation. Unfortunately for various reasons, even being close is no guaratee you'll have the information, skill, or intellect to do it either.


----------



## masherdong (Jul 5, 2007)

As my instructor says, "There's no right or wrong, only EFFECT."


----------



## Doc (Jul 5, 2007)

masherdong said:


> As my instructor says, "There's no right or wrong, only EFFECT."


Unfortunately, in my universe, your instructor is wrong if you want a consistent effect generated by improving skill supported by knowledge. Cute saying though.


----------



## marlon (Jul 8, 2007)

Evolve and modify for your own practice and growth, however, teach as the originator intended thereby giving your students the option to grow as they choose and not as you choose.  this to me is the concept of a base technique or the concept of a 'form'.
respectfully,
marlon


----------

