# High emphasis on katas



## PhotonGuy (Dec 22, 2016)

Some instructors place a really high emphasis in katas and use katas as the main factor for promotion. They do of course require more than good katas to promote but about 80 percent of promotion depends on how good you are with katas. I know katas are good and important and do make up a big portion of arts such as Karate but should such an emphasis be placed on them?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 22, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## CDR_Glock (Dec 22, 2016)

It like all types of testing is standardized.  It is the execution of basic techniques while performing transitions of movement in an established routine.  As the complexity of katas increases, the learner is able to show mastery of basic techniques.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Some instructors place a really high emphasis in katas and use katas as the main factor for promotion. They do of course require more than good katas to promote but about 80 percent of promotion depends on how good you are with katas. I know katas are good and important and do make up a big portion of arts such as Karate but should such an emphasis be placed on them?


That depends what you mean by them using them as the primary factor for promotion. If it is the main thing actually tested, it may well be that the instructor is observing general ability and "readiness" during class, and using the kata as a test under stress. (I'll point out that there's a danger in this if potential new instructors aren't taught this approach explicitly, as they may not realize the untested observations, and may become instructors who use ONLY the kata as a determinant of readiness.)


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Dec 22, 2016)

There's no such thing as should be, every school is different and there's no right or wrong just opinions. Some people like kata more than others if you don't like it don't train at a school like that


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 22, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I know katas are good and important and do make up a big portion of arts such as Karate but should such an emphasis be placed on them?


The guy in the following clip has 18-2 full contact Sanda fights record under his belt. Last time his form competition score was 7.45 (range from 7.0 to 8.0). His bad form did not affect his fighting ability at all.

I truly don't believe

- good form -> good fighting ability, or
- good fighting ability -> good form.

You use

1. partner drills to "develop" skill.
2. sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
3. equipment training to "enhance" skill.
4. solo drills/form to "polish" skill.

IMO, 1 > 2 > 3 > 4

You have to "develop" your MA skill first before you can "test", "enhance", and "polish" it. Also "solo" training is just "partner training without partner".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The guy in the following clip has 18-2 full contact Sanda fights record under his belt. Last time his form competition score was 7.45 (range from 7.0 to 8.0). His bad form did not affect his fighting ability at all.
> 
> I truly don't believe
> 
> ...


For grappling (the only place I've used forms), kata can be useful for memorizing sequences, "programming" sets of movements into muscle memory so they become automatic more quickly. For most students, I'd still put those at that 4th position, though I've had students who had a hard time transitioning from a "step-by-step" approach to useful application. The forms are more useful to them, sometimes more useful than equipment training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 22, 2016)

Geezuz, how many times do we need to have this discussion?

Look, kata/forms/poomsae are a tool for training.  Some systems use them a lot, some use them a little, some do not use them at all.

When properly understood and properly trained, they are a very useful training tool.  When not properly understood or trained, they are a waste of time. 

You do not need forms to become a skilled fighter.   But if you train in a system that relies heavily on forms, then expect to spend a lot of time training them.  If you don't like that, then go train something else that does not use forms.

You don't have to like them, and you don't need to train in a system that uses them and you don't need to apologize for that or feel like you need approval to make that decision.

But for #### sake, make the god-damned decision for your own self, and be done with it.  There is no debate here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> transitioning from a "step-by-step" approach to useful application.


I prefer to transfer "useful application" into "step-by-step approach". The advantage of this approach are:

- I can use this approach to create many new forms.
- Those "useful application" doesn't have to come from my primary MA style.
- ...

The form can be used to train at home when training partner is not available. I have learned a good number of forms in my life. The only form that I still train is the one that I had created from application. Sadly to say that I have just

- changed all my jumping kicks into non-jumping kicks.
- reduced 84 moves form into 58 moves form.
- 6 lines into 4 lines.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I prefer to transfer "useful application" into "step-by-step approach". The advantage of this approach are:
> 
> - I can use this approach to create many new forms.
> - Those "useful application" doesn't have to come from my primary MA style.
> ...


You may prefer that, but most students seem to process complex movements the other way. I have one now who is a great example of this. When he is given a full sequence of motions (say, a throw), he walks through it step by step. Forms give him a chance to work on the movements in flow, without worrying so much about whether he has the person's wrist is in the right position (something he stops to check every time). I've just started him on the long form that includes those techniques, with the instruction that he is to focus on the flow, rather than precision or even correctness. I'll nudge his forms into the right movement and position slowly, letting him keep the flow. That work will help him get past the step-by-step.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 23, 2016)

I love the "good kata doesn't guarantee good fighting" argument. It's true of course, but it relies on the false assumption that all martial arts training is for learning to fight. Fighting is a valid goal, but there are many others, just as valid.


----------



## MI_martialist (Dec 23, 2016)

If the instructor does not have a proper understanding of use of kata, then they are a waste of time and simply an empty dance performance.  If the instructor has sequenced properly, and kata are actually ENBU of martial applications and a real battle, then they are not a waste of time at all.

I do not believe beginners should EVER DO SOLO TRAINING if it can be avoided.  Of course, the primary goal of "martial arts" is the ability to fight; otherwise, it should be called "arts martial".  That way the art and other goals can be primary.

Understand that this does not mean that anyone and everyone is to be instructed.  There must be a filtering process that begins immediately, and even before the prospective student inquires...that profiling starts with how documents, posts, etc., are worded, designed, etc...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 23, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Forms give him a chance to work on the movements in flow, without worrying so much about whether he has the person's wrist is in the right position (something he stops to check every time).


This is why you may want to teach the beginner with separate arm movement and leg movement.

The SC basic form 1 to 4 contains only the hand movement.






The SC basic form 5 to 6 contain only the leg movement.






The SC basic form 7 to ... contain both hand and leg movement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you may want to teach the beginner with separate arm movement and leg movement.
> 
> The SC basic form 1 to 4 contains only the hand movement.
> 
> ...


For that reason, I altered the Classical form of the first technique they get. The form I use has no leg movement, at all.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 23, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> For that reason, I altered the Classical form of the first technique they get. The form I use has no leg movement, at all.


Sometime I have totally forgot that beginners may have difficult time to learn a complex move. One stupid method is to have 2 students as 1 group. One tries to learn the arm movement, the other tries to learn the leg movement. Both then exchange their learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime I have totally forgot that beginners may have difficult time to learn a complex move. One stupid method is to have 2 students as 1 group. One tries to learn the arm movement, the other tries to learn the leg movement. Both then exchange their learning.


I'm trying to picture that. I'm doing a very bad job (as are the students I'm imagining).


----------



## JP3 (Dec 23, 2016)

On kata performance in consideration of promotion.

Personally, I use competence in the katas as the baseline for evaluating if someone is getting ready for promotion. I require the kata to be performed with a decree of skill & competence commensurate with the rank to which the person "has," not the rank to which they are being promoted. My most recent instructor gave me that insight, saying "the person never is actually deserving by skill of the promotion, the promotion is earned through effort and desire for it." It's an interesting way to approach promotion standards and I've adopted it.  it means that right about the middle point of the time in grade at a specific rank, the person actually is skill-deserving of the rank they are wearing. But, I digress.

I also, as the student progresses, slide more interest of mine into other of their aspects of skill, i.e. their self-defense acumen, aability to think through a physical problem in which they've been put, etc. But, this is done during normal class time, not on promotion day. Promotion day is almost 100% kata, perhaps a self-defense demo, but that's it. I am nearly 100% certain of the person's "promotability" prior tot he demo, which is why they are being promoted.

Note: this is WAY off board from my original Korean TKD/HKD roots' method!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 23, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Geezuz, how many times do we need to have this discussion?


You forgot to add this.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 24, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime I have totally forgot that beginners may have difficult time to learn a complex move. One stupid method is to have 2 students as 1 group. One tries to learn the arm movement, the other tries to learn the leg movement. Both then exchange their learning.



Why would anyone do it like that? As you say...stoopid!


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 24, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I love the "good kata doesn't guarantee good fighting" argument. It's true of course, but it relies on the false assumption that all martial arts training is for learning to fight. Fighting is a valid goal, but there are many others, just as valid.



Fighting as a goal I would have issues with that. Fighting isn't a goal, just a response.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Fighting as a goal I would have issues with that. Fighting isn't a goal, just a response.


That's semantics. He's referring to fighting ability as the goal - what I (incorrectly) call "combat effectiveness".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Fighting as a goal I would have issues with that. Fighting isn't a goal, just a response.



The point I was trying to make is that certain types of training are often viewed and judged through the lens of one type of desired outcome. Yet desired outcomes vary, so the filter is incorrect.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 24, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's semantics. He's referring to fighting ability as the goal - what I (incorrectly) call "combat effectiveness".


When you throw a front kick, after that kick, you can

1. pull your kick back, you then drop your foot forward and advance.
2. without pulling your kick back, you drop your foot forward and advance.

For health, performance, self-cultivation, inner peace, ... whether you do 1 or 2 won't make any difference. But if you train "combat effectiveness", 2 will give you a chance to train how to use your kick to

- close distance, and
- set up a punch.

In other words, with "fighting" as your goal, your form will look different from those who only care about "health", ....

Here is an example.


----------



## Steve (Dec 24, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Geezuz, how many times do we need to have this discussion?
> 
> Look, kata/forms/poomsae are a tool for training.  Some systems use them a lot, some use them a little, some do not use them at all.
> 
> ...


Are they a good testing tool?   That's a different thing than saying they're a good training tool.   Isn't it?  It seems like the original post is more about testing.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 24, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The point I was trying to make is that certain types of training are often viewed and judged through the lens of one type of desired outcome. Yet desired outcomes vary, so the filter is incorrect.



Right. See what you are saying.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2016)

Steve said:


> Are they a good testing tool?   That's a different thing than saying they're a good training tool.   Isn't it?  It seems like the original post is more about testing.


If it is part of the training methodology, then it would likely be part of the testing process.  A knowledgeable instructor can tell a lot about a students understanding and skill by how the student does kata.  And no, it is not kata as performance art.

Personally, I feel that most people do not properly understand, nor practice, kata.  That is just my opinion.  So by extension, for most people, in my opinion, it is not worth much as part of the test either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> If it is part of the training methodology, then it would likely be part of the testing process.  A knowledgeable instructor can tell a lot about a students understanding and skill by how the student does kata.  And no, it is not kata as performance art.
> 
> Personally, I feel that most people do not properly understand, nor practice, kata.  That is just my opinion.  So by extension, for most people, in my opinion, it is not worth much as part of the test either.


I agree. If it's used properly as a training tool, it can be an effective test for parts of an art. If it's used poorly for training, it becomes a poor tool for testing.


----------



## senseiblackbelt (Dec 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Some instructors place a really high emphasis in katas and use katas as the main factor for promotion. They do of course require more than good katas to promote but about 80 percent of promotion depends on how good you are with katas. I know katas are good and important and do make up a big portion of arts such as Karate but should such an emphasis be placed on them?



absulotely. Katas teach you self control and descipline, (something you need to earn a black belt in karate) and they teach you a variety of techniques incase you need it in a life and death situation.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 25, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you throw a front kick, after that kick, you can
> 
> 1. pull your kick back, you then drop your foot forward and advance.
> 2. without pulling your kick back, you drop your foot forward and advance.
> ...


Why can't option 2 allow you to close distance, or set up a punch?  Or... why can't you punch before you even put the foot down?  The rhythm will be different, but that's far from it being ineffective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 25, 2016)

jks9199 said:


> Why can't option 2 allow you to close distance, or set up a punch?  Or... why can't you punch before you even put the foot down?  The rhythm will be different, but that's far from it being ineffective.


Many MA systems perform a kick as:

- lift leg up,
- kick out,
- pull kick back,
- drop down,

as described as option 1. This can demonstrate good single leg balance.

Option 2 may look as if you don't have good balance and may not look as "pretty" as option 1 does, but option 2 is more combat effective than option 1. The original form designer might just design the form as:

- a kick is just a kick.
- a punch is just a punch. .

But

- a kick can be close distance and set up a punch.
- a punch can be a punch followed by a pull.

This is why the way that you train should not be restricted by the original form designer. If you have "fighting" in mind, your form training should look different from those who trains form for health, performance, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's semantics. He's referring to fighting ability as the goal - what I (incorrectly) call "combat effectiveness".



Somewhat confused by that. Fighting ability is not semantics, just is. Fighting ability is a intangible to most, unless being in the mix.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many MA systems perform a kick as:
> 
> - lift leg up,
> - kick out,
> ...


Taunting option 1 does not preclude option 2; good balance doesn't mean you can't drop the foot without retracting. Training only option 2 will leave you only forward options.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Somewhat confused by that. Fighting ability is not semantics, just is. Fighting ability is a intangible to most, unless being in the mix.


He wasn't saying getting into a fight was the goal. He was saying the ability to handle the fight is the goal.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> He wasn't saying getting into a fight was the goal. He was saying the ability to handle the fight is the goal.



Then I agree with you on that. The fight is the fight. The ultimate goal is the result that the opponent realises, that some of realises that fighting is nothing trained. We just do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Then I agree with you on that. The fight is the fight. The ultimate goal is the result that the opponent realises, that some of realises that fighting is nothing trained. We just do it.


You lost me in your language difficulty in that one.  Can you say the last part a different way?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - a kick is just a kick.
> - a punch is just a punch. .


The fundamental things apply.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You lost me in your language difficulty in that one.  Can you say the last part a different way?



 Language difference makes no difference. Well I guess it does. You know or you don't. Was that a subtle dig, then again I don't care either way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> The fundamental things apply.


As time goes byyyyyyyyyy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Language difference makes no difference. Well I guess it does. You know or you don't. Was that a subtle dig, then again I don't care either way.


No, it was a request for clarification. Your statement didn't make sense to me. So yes, language difference does make a difference.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 26, 2016)

Actually that was a word sandwich, none of which meant the slightest thing that I could decipher.  But I thought it was only me.  I mean no insult - it just seemed like a whole lot of nonsense words thrown together in a random way, like you were angry with verbs or something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 26, 2016)

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far. 

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.
> 
> When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.
> 
> When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


Your "Tony-fu" is a personal hybridization of all you've studied. In my experience, there's little chance of real conflict within personal-fu, since we each naturally combine those bits that work together. If there is a natural conflict between styles (e.g.: angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA), those get resolved by personal preference. Some folks will simply prefer one approach over the other, while others will find themselves naturally choosing each in different situations.

The difficulty for most people comes early in their learning of one or more arts, where the principles of something else causes confusion (again, that example of angles vs. circles, which still causes problems for one of my students). This resolves itself once the habits of the new stuff get more engrained, then the natural response I mentioned above tends to take over.
_
Note for other readers: This is a bit different from my comment about actual hybrid arts, rather than a personal hybridization of whatever you've studied. NGA is a hybrid art (and Shojin-ryu is a variation of that art). My "Gerry-fu" is not pure NGA; it is influenced by Judo (not much change, since that's one origin art for NGA), Shotokan (same comment), FMA, Ueshiba's Aikido, and even some touches of stuff like Silat and other bits I've worked on in seminars. In the dojo, I do my best to stick to NGA most of the time. In my personal practice, some of the other bits come out more often. _


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Taunting option 1 does not preclude option 2; good balance doesn't mean you can't drop the foot without retracting. Training only option 2 will leave you only forward options.


Besides close the distance and set up punch, there is another important training that is when your opponent catches your kicking leg, your forward movement will put all your weight on that leg. It will make your leg to be very heavy to hold on. Form only records one strategy, if you use form to train, you have to change it to meet your goal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides close the distance and set up punch, there is another important training that is when your opponent catches your kicking leg, your forward movement will put all your weight on that leg. It will make your leg to be very heavy to hold on. Form only records one strategy, if you use form to train, you have to change it to meet your goal.


Agreed. My point was that if we start from Option 1, we can transition to including Option 2. Going in the other direction, in my experience, is more problematic.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> No, it was a request for clarification. Your statement didn't make sense to me. So yes, language difference does make a difference.



Yeah no worries. Half the time I don't make sense to myself, kinda think one would have to be a Jedi


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually that was a word sandwich, none of which meant the slightest thing that I could decipher.  But I thought it was only me.  I mean no insult - it just seemed like a whole lot of nonsense words thrown together in a random way, like you were angry with verbs or something.



Yeah, it's not like I am Welsh or anything


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. My point was that if we start from Option 1, we can transition to including Option 2. Going in the other direction, in my experience, is more problematic.


This is what I may call the

- beginner level training,
- immediate level training,
- advance level training.

During the beginner level training, you use option 1. lift up foot, kick out, pull back, drop down. During immediate level training and advance level training, you start to train the other strategies. I like to use a low roundhouse kick to set up a skin bite followed by a scooping. It may not be what the original form designer tried to design it for.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 26, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.
> 
> When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.
> 
> When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.


Huh - I meant to post that comment in the "hybrid arts" thread. Not sure how I managed to get it in the "kata" thread. I'll repost it over there so that it's part of the correct discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah no worries. Half the time I don't make sense to myself, kinda think one would have to be a Jedi


LOL. Could you clarify the statement for me, then? I would like to reply, but if I did so now, I'd just be making it up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Huh - I meant to post that comment in the "hybrid arts" thread. Not sure how I managed to get it in the "kata" thread. I'll repost it over there so that it's part of the correct discussion.


I noticed that after I replied. I'll copy my reply over there, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is what I may call the
> 
> - beginner level training,
> - immediate level training,
> ...


Okay, what the heck is a "skin bite"? Please clarify that before I decide you're literally biting your sparring partners!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, what the heck is a "skin bite"? Please clarify that before I decide you're literally biting your sparring partners!


That's a typo. It's suppose to be "shin bite" that you use your shin bone to press on the inside (or outside) of your opponent's leg to make his knee joint to bend side way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's a typo. It's suppose to be "shin bite" that you use your shin bone to press on the inside (or outside) of your opponent's leg to make his knee joint to bend side way.


I'm still glad you described it, because when I read the first part of this reply, I was wondering how you got down there to bite their shin...


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> LOL. Could you clarify the statement for me, then? I would like to reply, but if I did so now, I'd just be making it up.



Just thinking about the language. It is very simplistic in human terms. Whether it is the fist, the elbow or the knee, there is only one language. Oh and not to worry about making things up. Been doing that for years, although from my slant, it is simply what works. No biggie if you don't get that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Just thinking about the language. It is very simplistic in human terms. Whether it is the fist, the elbow or the knee, there is only one language. Oh and not to worry about making things up. Been doing that for years, although from my slant, it is simply what works. No biggie if you don't get that


I was referring to the actual language - the words - not the different techniques. I literally didn't understand the post I quoted, and wanted to reply to it, but can't, because the words didn't make sense to me.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many MA systems perform a kick as:
> 
> - lift leg up,
> - kick out,
> ...


Perhaps.  But, perhaps  there's an advantage to being able to put your foot down rather than fall with it, or even kick again immediately?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Just thinking about the language. It is very simplistic in human terms. Whether it is the fist, the elbow or the knee, there is only one language. Oh and not to worry about making things up. Been doing that for years, although from my slant, it is simply what works. No biggie if you don't get that


Maybe you can go back and reread what you wrote?  I think maybe fingers got out of sync with brain, or maybe spellchecker got you.  It really didn't make much sense...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------

