# Who gets to change a kata or technique…



## Holmejr (Dec 23, 2021)

I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2021)

My opinion:  kata is a training tool.  It is not sacred.  Making a change is not automatically a corruption nor changes the identity.  However, most people probably have no business making changes.  But potentially, anyone can.  The Kata Gods will not strike you dead.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 23, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> changing a kata to fit ones needs ...


If you change few words in a Shakespeare's play, that play was still created by Shakespeare and not created by you. You can only have credit for a play if that play is completely written by you.

I have condensed a 108 moves Taiji form into a 48 moves Taiji form. Did I create any new moves in that new form? No! I only removed the redundancy.

I have created a new form for a "dancing for health" group (Yuan Ji Wu) by picking up moves from many different forms. Did I create a new form? No! I only tore some forms apart and did reconstruction. In other words, I didn't create anything new.

You will get credit if you can create a new form. It's not a easy task. Can you create a new kick, new punch, new lock, new throw, new strategy, or ... that has not been done by anybody else? It's difficult if not impossible.

In other words, no matter what you do, you just copy and edit. There is no creation at all. If you just change a front kick into a roundhouse kick, you have just replaced a word with a different word in a sentence. The grammar in that sentence has not been changed yet.


----------



## Gyakuto (Dec 24, 2021)

Kata will change over time because we are not computer-controlled robots and thus we inadvertently introduce idiosyncratic modifications to the movements. When I see old clips of, say Gichin Funakoshi or Nakayama Hakudo, performing their versions of Karate/Iaido kata respectively, one can immediately see the disparity with present day versions, so the inextricable evolution of Budo is clearly taking place.

There is also the concept of ‘Shu Ha Ri’ and if anyone does reach the ‘Ri’ stage, perhaps they might modify kata (although out of humbleness, most 8th Dan Hanshi suggest they’re still at the ‘Shu’ stage).


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 24, 2021)

It's actually a really interesting question. I don't have any sort of answer or criteria I'm aware of, but have only heard that at master level one is qualified or has the authority. Then again that's a little sketchy and uncertain.

But I do see it as a natural thing which occurs, and certainly not as heresy, but perhaps a different understanding of or application of the principles.

To me it makes sense that the essence or principles remain in tact though. Then that sort of sounds like me saying the kata shouldn't change hehe. I guess I see kata as a model you can use to EXPLORE certain principles. In that sense, it's actually not stuck, or static, but freeing.

But anyway, I'm not sure at what stage you have the authority to actually modify kata, AND still call the kata under the same name.


----------



## Gyakuto (Dec 24, 2021)

What designates a ‘master’. It’s a term used much more in the US, but I know of 8th Dan Hanshi who move so freely and naturally and others, who merely hit the stipulated ‘ideal points’. I’d trust the former to modify kata a lot more than the latter.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 24, 2021)

Gyakuto said:


> Kata will change over time because we are not computer-controlled robots and thus we inadvertently introduce idiosyncratic modifications to the movements. When I see old clips of, say Gichin Funakoshi or Nakayama Hakudo, performing their versions of Karate/Iaido kata respectively, one can immediately see the disparity with present day versions, so the inextricable evolution of Budo is clearly taking place.
> 
> There is also the concept of ‘Shu Ha Ri’ and if anyone does reach the ‘Ri’ stage, perhaps they might modify kata (although out of humbleness, most 8th Dan Hanshi suggest they’re still at the ‘Shu’ stage).


Agree. If the kata/form/hyung/poomsae do not change over time, they will die out. True for a whole style/system. 
As sentient beings, we are always learning how to do things better/faster/smarter. Things like efficiency of motion change application.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 24, 2021)

My 2 cents......kata moves are made up of basic techniques that form the individual kata. What changes are the interpretation of those techniques of which there are many. The integrity of the individual kata should stay intact and is the difference between old school and modern dojo....


----------



## Gyakuto (Dec 24, 2021)

I don’t think they’ll ‘die out’, they’ll simply be ‘static’ in the way J S Bach’s Goldberg Variations are static, but nevertheless, _utterly_ beautiful. I think our arts _look_ better because of advances in physical culture (intelligent stretching, progressive weight-training, the integration of cardiovascular fitness, sports psychology, kinesiology and better general education etc). I don’t see a static art as being an issue, especially for an aesthetic martial art. It preserves a piece of beautiful history (as does the manuscript for the Goldberg Variations). But of course, the petson playing those little black dots will ‘interpret‘ them purposely or inadvertently…as we Budoka interpret kata movements


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


Here's my thought on this: everyone, within context. While there is some utility to fixed kata (everyone within an organization can do kata together), I think that's outweighed by the utility and reason around changing it.

First, let me be clear that I think too often, elements in a MA system are kept static out of a belief that the person who created them had some level of genius. They may have, but it's a safe bet they were still evolving what they taught at the point folks are trying to freeze the system to. I also believe it extraordinarily unlikely that the masters of old were smarter and/or better informed than the complete gathering of people practicing the arts today.

So, who could change a kata?

Any student, when practicing the kata, is likely to understand it better if they "play with it". I teach my students to vary speed, stance height, level of tension, and (within reason) the stances. By doing this, they both find out why I chose what I chose (a simliar stance doesn't facilitate the move to the next technique, for instance) and find out where variations fit their body better. After they have a decent grip on the basics of the kata, I also suggest some technique variations that fit the basic movements, so they can use the kata more broadly. So the student can change the kata for their use. It's important they learn the base kata, though, so they aren't just altering to avoid where they lack skill.
Any instructor, to fit their approach. It's my strong belief that every instructor should be looking to add to their art, because it's literally impossible for them to have learned 100% of what their instructor was trying to teach. Since there's always loss in transmisison, adding in what you confidently can is the only way to prevent major degradation of an art over time. I'm not talking about wanton alteration, but about bits and degrees. (Some of those "changes" will likely be what they didn't understand, and think they are adding back to an art that already had it.) With kata, this would mean adjusting so the kata fits movement patterns and stances as the instructor teaches. For instance, I teach a boxing-style fighting stance, in addition to the standard Karate-style. Both should be in my kata. These changes would be school-specific, and it might be useful to also teach the un-altered version, for when students attend seminars, etc.
Ranking instructors and heads-of-style, as the system has a need to evolve. This would include when pushing for some significant change in emphasis (perhaps something like the sine wave movement in TKD), or to "fix" a portion of kata that just doesn't support modern usage of the art (I'm looking at you, confusing bunkai).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you change few words in a Shakespeare's play, that play was still created by Shakespeare and not created by you. You can only have credit for a play if that play is completely written by you.
> 
> I have condensed a 108 moves Taiji form into a 48 moves Taiji form. Did I create any new moves in that new form? No! I only removed the redundancy.
> 
> ...


I think you did create new forms. If I disassemble a shed and use the lumber to make a new shed, I've built a new shed. Of course, if I pull the siding off and simply re-mount it with better fasteners, I didn't build a new shed. Same if all I did was remove a small area from one side of the shed.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 24, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I think you did create new forms. If I disassemble a shed and use the lumber to make a new shed, I've built a new shed. Of course, if I pull the siding off and simply re-mount it with better fasteners, I didn't build a new shed. Same if all I did was remove a small area from one side of the shed.


You are familiar with the thought experiment 'The Ship of Theseus' in the field of identity metaphysics?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


Anyone can. Few should.

Most intentional changes are ill-conceived, poorly executed, and introduce errors. They neither enhance nor make clear the supposed purpose of the changes made.

However, most changes are accidentally introduced as one flaw after another is introduced by generation after generation of badly-trained instructors. 

I feel strongly, as if anyone didn't already know, that making changes to established kata simply shows that one does not correctly understand the kata they are changing. Worse, it closes off the possibility that their own students eventually might understand them.

I feel I understand maybe 1/10 of 8 empty handed kata I practice,  and probably never will fully understand them. I owe it to future generations not to destroy their chance to explore those kata and perhaps understand them better than I ever could. I will change nothing intentionally, and strive not to introduce errors in what I was taught.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 24, 2021)

Anyone can change forms. 
At some point, form A is no longer form A. Exactly how much needs to be changed before that happens is debatable. I'd suggest that if the changes make me go "They're doing A, but not quite right" then it's still form A. If the changes make me go "what form is that???" then it's no longer A and should be renamed.
In practical terms, if you change a form that is used in promotion exams, you should expect to score lower.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 24, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you just change a front kick into a roundhouse kick, you have just replaced a word with a different word in a sentence. The grammar in that sentence has not been changed yet.


"I love MA."  "I hate MA."  The grammar in these sentences is the same.  The meaning, though, has completely changed.  Or, "I swim MA," makes the sentence devoid of valid meaning. 

What if the move before Wang's kick is designed to position him for a low front kick.  Doing a high roundhouse instead will meet with empty air or ineffectively hit a shoulder.  _The kick becomes meaningless AND the prior set-up move now has no function_ - future generations copying this change will wonder about its mysterious bunkai.


_Simon_ said:


> To me it makes sense that the essence or principles remain in tact though. Then that sort of sounds like me saying the kata shouldn't change hehe. I guess I see kata as a model you can use to EXPLORE certain principles.


There are some great songs out there.  Take the "Star Spangled Banner."  It has been rendered many times over the past century.  Whitney Houstin, Jimi Hendrix (instrumental only), and various pop, soul and operatic singers. Each has put their individual touch and artistic interpretation on it.  

Yet, the words have not changed - The _meaning_ has not changed - Only the pronunciation, inflection and pitch. This allows each singer to _explore_ the sounds, have it fit within their physical vocal range, and make the song "their's," without changing the message the song was designed to convey and pass on.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> "I love MA."  "I hate MA."  The grammar in these sentences is the same.  The meaning, though, has completely changed.  Or, "I swim MA," makes the sentence devoid of valid meaning.
> 
> What if the move before Wang's kick is designed to position him for a low front kick.  Doing a high roundhouse instead will meet with empty air or ineffectively hit a shoulder.  _The kick becomes meaningless AND the prior set-up move now has no function_ - future generations copying this change will wonder about its mysterious bunkai.
> 
> ...


I love the way you explained that!

Every martial artist may express the same kata, taught by the same instructor, somewhat differently.  Typically only experienced martial artists who know that style will even notice the difference, because they are subtle and nuanced, rather than grossly obvious.  Not unlike the way some musicians might chuckle when they hear a guitarist express a series of notes different to convey a subtle difference, when everyone else hears the same notes from guitarist to guitarist.

But the important part is that they are exploring only what is within the kata, not changing the 'notes' themselves.  The moves remain the same; the expressed intent that some experienced eyes can see may be subtly different.  Did they 'change' the kata?  In that case, I would say no, because nothing whatsoever has been lost; every concept and application that can be expressed within the move is still there, waiting to be explored.  Nothing is foreclosed or shut off due to lack of understanding.

Imagine the artists who played their own interpretations of the "Star Spangled Banner," and who were simply changing it because they were not good enough musicians to play the notes.  This is what I most commonly see when people 'change' kata.  They cannot absorb or were not taught certain things, so rather than trying to understand them, they remove or modify them to something they can actually do.  That, in my opinion, is a shame.


----------



## skribs (Dec 24, 2021)

I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done.  There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms.  I mean, you *could *reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You are familiar with the thought experiment 'The Ship of Theseus' in the field of identity metaphysics?


I had forgotten the name for it, but yes. And this does get into the same question. I ask about my own system: how much has to change - and how quickly - before it ceases to be the same art? I think that's the same thought experiment, and there really isn't an answer, just principles to discuss (which, of course, is the main value of a good thought experiment like The Ship of Theseus).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 24, 2021)

skribs said:


> I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done.  There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms.  I mean, you *could *reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.


That holds true for any form set. From what you've said in the past, I would fail you on your performance of the Palgwae forms because of changes your school has made. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the changes, it just means that people will judge your performance based on how they learned the form.
Our KJN has made a few changes but only in a couple, and they are relatively small. I've made it a habit to practice both the original and modified forms. If I were performing them anywhere other than one of our schools, I would do the original version.
If I were doing it competitively at your school, where I know you don't do the original versions, I'd try to get someone from your school to show me your version so I could do it your way. If it wasn't a competition, I'd do the version I personally like better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

skribs said:


> I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done.  There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms.  I mean, you *could *reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.


To me, that goes back to the original question, rather than answering it. If the only reason it's wrong is that it doesn't match the official forms, then it's not actually wrong (outside of that context). If you can insert a different movement at point X, and the flow still works, then that new version of the form isn't actually wrong. It's just different. If the inserted move makes the previous move make less sense (awkward transition, poor positions, etc. - the stuff @isshinryuronin was referring to), then we might say there's something wrong with that form.

But for individual exploration (temporary changes by the student), I don't think there's a "wrong". If I put a punch where a kick used to be, it may screw everything up around it, but it'll likely make it more obvious why that kick worked well there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> There are some great songs out there. Take the "Star Spangled Banner." It has been rendered many times over the past century. Whitney Houstin, Jimi Hendrix (instrumental only), and various pop, soul and operatic singers. Each has put their individual touch and artistic interpretation on it.
> 
> Yet, the words have not changed - The _meaning_ has not changed - Only the pronunciation, inflection and pitch. This allows each singer to _explore_ the sounds, have it fit within their physical vocal range, and make the song "their's," without changing the message the song was designed to convey and pass on.


I like this. I'd also say that key changes are analogous to both highlighting strengths (doing a higher version of a kick, because you damned well can) and dealing with weaknesses (doing a slightly lower kick, because you are less stable on the high kick). And pace changes are analogous to...pace changes, as well as to intensity changes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 24, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> "I love MA."  "I hate MA."


If your form has "I love MA" 6 times, to reduce your form into only 1 time make sense.

Also If your form only has "I love MA" but without "I hate MA", To add "I hate MA" into your form also make sense.

After I had replaced a jumping front kick with a MT flying knee, nobody can say that my long fist system doesn't have flying knee. After I had replaced a 360 degree backward floor sweep with a TKD spin hook kick, nobody can say that my long fist system doesn't have spin hook kick.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 24, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> In practical terms, if you change a form that is used in promotion exams, you should expect to score lower.


Exactly, it's called standardization which are the roots of any art. Once we have adhered to the standard all else is a hybrid which frees up that standard kata and gives it freedom and life....I hope I'm adding to your thought line and not detracting from it........


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I had forgotten the name for it, but yes. And this does get into the same question. I ask about my own system: how much has to change - and how quickly - before it ceases to be the same art? I think that's the same thought experiment, and there really isn't an answer, just principles to discuss (which, of course, is the main value of a good thought experiment like The Ship of Theseus).


Im not familiar with the ship of Theseus experiment.  But in my opinion, it can be possible to change the forms/curriculum dramatically, and not lose the identity of the system.  In my system for example, what is important are the primary principles and the foundational approach to how we develop them.  The techniques are the examples of the principles in action.  Forms are more complex examples of the principles in action.  We could eliminate forms altogether, or I could create my own forms, and it would still be Tibetan white crane, as long as the foundational principles are intact.  

If a system’s identity depends on a specific curriculum /set of kata done without variation, then I guess any little change would alter the identity.  Personally I’m Glad to not have such constraints.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Im not familiar with the ship of Theseus experiment.  But in my opinion, it can be possible to change the forms/curriculum dramatically, and not lose the identity of the system.  In my system for example, what is important are the primary principles and the foundational approach to how we develop them.  The techniques are the examples of the principles in action.  Forms are more complex examples of the principles in action.  We could eliminate forms altogether, or I could create my own forms, and it would still be Tibetan white crane, as long as the foundational principles are intact.
> 
> If a system’s identity depends on a specific curriculum /set of kata done without variation, then I guess any little change would alter the identity.  Personally I’m Glad to not have such constraints.


How do you feel about spelling? I mean, I guess we could just make up our own symbols to mean whatever we were trying to say. Are we constrained by the formality of spelling and grammar?

My point is, rules (or kata) are not meant to constrain, but to communicate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How do you feel about spelling? I mean, I guess we could just make up our own symbols to mean whatever we were trying to say. Are we constrained by the formality of spelling and grammar?
> 
> My point is, rules (or kata) are not meant to constrain, but to communicate.


I don’t see these as a meaningful comparison. 

I can agree that kata is meant to communicate.  But the exact choreography of a kata does not represent perfection, meaning that the choreography could take an infinite variety and still communicate equally well.  Kata does not have the same structure as language, that makes language and spelling have meaning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How do you feel about spelling? I mean, I guess we could just make up our own symbols to mean whatever we were trying to say. Are we constrained by the formality of spelling and grammar?
> 
> My point is, rules (or kata) are not meant to constrain, but to communicate.


The spelling of words in English has changed over time. It’s still the same language.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> The spelling of words in English has changed over time. It’s still the same language.


This is a good point, and there may be some additional comparisons wrapped up here that make sense.  

Maybe a better way to look at it is in telling a story.  I might learn a story from my elders, that I then tell to my son.  However, I may not use the exact same words to tell the story, as were used when it was told to me.  That does not make it a different story.  That does not mean that the meaning of the story was less well conveyed.  It could, if my telling was quite poor.  But it does not automatically make it so.  I might even change some key elements of the story, to make it something to which my son can better relate.  In that case, perhaps my telling of the story is better, more relevant.   

I think kata is more like the telling of a story, than like the spelling of words.  Telling it the same can be great.  There may be no need to change how it is told, and someone who lacks talent as a storyteller should perhaps just stick with the script as it was first written.  But it can be changed up and told differently, with results that are equally good, or even better.

Furthermore, someone could come up with a very different story, a new story, that conveys the same point and the same meaning.  Because it isn’t the specific sequence of words that matters so much as the meaning and the story as a while.  And someone could create a different and new kata, the practice of which bestows the same benefits, and maybe even better.  Because the skills that the kata helps develop are more important that the specific choreography.  The kata is a tool to be used, not an end product in and of itself.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 24, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I can agree that kata is meant to communicate. But the exact choreography of a kata does not represent perfection, meaning that the choreography could take an infinite variety and still communicate equally well.


Sometimes true.  What's missing is that kata is not just a random collection of techniques - it's often a collection of a _series_ of techniques, where the efficacy of one move is dependent on the one(s) before it.  _The sequence is of utmost importance.  _This is the essence of _bunkai_. Thus, there is not "an infinite variety." If the choreography is going to be changed, the particular sequence of moves must be treated as one entity.

Taking this most important provision into account, I agree the exact choreography is not important.  In kata, the individual sequences (usually 2-5 moves) comprise the various lessons a particular kata is teaching.  

As to who can change a kata, my default answer would be that system's Master.  Theoretically, like the Pope, he is the one responsible for the integrity and interpretation of the system.  In practice, the organizational branching and fragmentation of the style yields multiple "masters" who claim authority.  Hopefully, they have the high and complete understanding of the principles and bunkai to make wise choices.  Anyone with lessor wisdom is playing around with something they don't really understand, and any changes they make can result in some parts of the kata being ineffective, as I noted in my earlier post.

To be sure, kata has been changed over the centuries.  Higaonna Kanryo changed the forms he learned in China. His student, Miyagi Chojun, made further changes.  His student, Shimabuku Tatsuo, changed the kata from what he was taught.  So kata have never been unchanging monoliths.

This brings us back to the question, "Who can change kata?" (without destroying it)  You can!  IF you are on a level with Higaonna, Miyagi or Shimabuku.  But I think martial artists of that caliber are far and few between.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Sometimes true.  What's missing is that kata is not just a random collection of techniques - it's often a collection of a _series_ of techniques, where the efficacy of one move is dependent on the one(s) before it.  _The sequence is of utmost importance.  _This is the essence of _bunkai_. Thus, there is not "an infinite variety." If the choreography is going to be changed, the particular sequence of moves must be treated as one entity.
> 
> Taking this most important provision into account, I agree the exact choreography is not important.  In kata, the individual sequences (usually 2-5 moves) comprise the various lessons a particular kata is teaching.
> 
> ...


I understand a lot of people also feel this way about it.


----------



## skribs (Dec 25, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I would fail you on your performance of the Palgwae forms because of changes your school has made.


In the later forms, I don't even know if "changes" is the right word.  

With that said, I think you're in a fairly unique spot at your rank.  I'm going to *pretend *for a minute that you're a lower belt than I am.  You would be expected to do the form our way, for a few reasons:

To help get ready for your next test
So that all of the students are being taught the same way
Now, I don't honestly know how it works when I high-ranking person goes to a new school.  Since I've gotten my black belt, we've only had one student come in who was a higher rank than me, and he was a returning student.  So I'm not really sure of the dynamic.



Gerry Seymour said:


> If the only reason it's wrong is that it doesn't match the official forms, then it's not actually wrong (outside of that context). If you can insert a different movement at point X, and the flow still works, then that new version of the form isn't actually wrong. It's just different.


I would argue that (for the most part) there isn't another context for these forms.  I don't see them as a practical training tool; more of an exercise and a performance.  The place they are most applicable is on a belt test or form competition.  Since those are standardized by Kukkiwon and World Taekwondo, there is a correct way of doing things.

As to the "flow", the form can "flow" with different techniques, but I don't feel the forms are grounded in any realistic choreography to begin with.


Gerry Seymour said:


> But for individual exploration (temporary changes by the student), I don't think there's a "wrong". If I put a punch where a kick used to be, it may screw everything up around it, but it'll likely make it more obvious why that kick worked well there.


For the most part, I think that time spent on forms is better spent perfecting the details to have a better performance on your test or competition.


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 25, 2021)

Yeah it's really tricky to quantify. I agree with both points in that of course they will change, evolve etc depending on emphasis, interpretation...

But like it's been said, there are many I'm sure who don't actually know, understand or take the proper time to study the form, yet just prematurely decide they want to change it. I've actually seen forms be changed because the instructor "didn't like it done that way", just that, no real reason but being irked by it. And that actually may carry on through their teaching style and them actually PASSING ON the system to their students, a mentality of if I don't understand or like something just don't bother, change it. That would surely degrade an incredibly important characteristic of martial arts of discipline, willingness, openmindedness and studying deeply rather widely; just in my opinion!

In the system I practice now the founder made some changes to the original forms which make sense to me. I actually love the original versions too, so I hope to practice those too.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 25, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah it's really tricky to quantify.


And yet somebody in this very thread just referenced 3/8th of the Ba Gua.

It's an Xmas miracle!


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 25, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> And yet somebody in this very thread just referenced 3/8th of the Ba Gua.
> 
> It's an Xmas miracle!


I'm unsure of the reference/meaning here, but it sounds good 🤣


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Sometimes true.  What's missing is that kata is not just a random collection of techniques - it's often a collection of a _series_ of techniques, where the efficacy of one move is dependent on the one(s) before it.  _The sequence is of utmost importance.  _This is the essence of _bunkai_. Thus, there is not "an infinite variety." If the choreography is going to be changed, the particular sequence of moves must be treated as one entity.
> 
> Taking this most important provision into account, I agree the exact choreography is not important.  In kata, the individual sequences (usually 2-5 moves) comprise the various lessons a particular kata is teaching.
> 
> ...


Honestly, my view is that if it takes such a high level to understand the kata well enough to make basic adjustments, that’s a problem in the training model. It makes progress difficult and leaves major failure points when one of those few inevitably pass away.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2021)

skribs said:


> In the later forms, I don't even know if "changes" is the right word.
> 
> With that said, I think you're in a fairly unique spot at your rank.  I'm going to *pretend *for a minute that you're a lower belt than I am.  You would be expected to do the form our way, for a few reasons:
> 
> ...


I have a wholly different view of kata. When I added long-form kata (as opposed to the one-step kata) to my system, they were out there to support other training. Students are taught to use them as tools (warming up, practicing balance and stances, keeping moving when injured, etc.), rather than for the kata’s sake. So students are encouraged to work the kata to develop movement, for instance.
If the only useful context for a kata is testing, I’m not sure I get the point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah it's really tricky to quantify. I agree with both points in that of course they will change, evolve etc depending on emphasis, interpretation...
> 
> But like it's been said, there are many I'm sure who don't actually know, understand or take the proper time to study the form, yet just prematurely decide they want to change it. I've actually seen forms be changed because the instructor "didn't like it done that way", just that, no real reason but being irked by it. And that actually may carry on through their teaching style and them actually PASSING ON the system to their students, a mentality of if I don't understand or like something just don't bother, change it. That would surely degrade an incredibly important characteristic of martial arts of discipline, willingness, openmindedness and studying deeply rather widely; just in my opinion!
> 
> In the system I practice now the founder made some changes to the original forms which make sense to me. I actually love the original versions too, so I hope to practice those too.


I suspect that dislike comes from a lack of understanding. If the instructor doesn’t understand a section, he cannot teach it properly, and it should probably be changed to something he can.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 25, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah it's really tricky to quantify. I agree with both points in that of course they will change, evolve etc depending on emphasis, interpretation...
> 
> But like it's been said, there are many I'm sure who don't actually know, understand or take the proper time to study the form, yet just prematurely decide they want to change it. I've actually seen forms be changed because the instructor "didn't like it done that way", just that, no real reason but being irked by it. And that actually may carry on through their teaching style and them actually PASSING ON the system to their students, a mentality of if I don't understand or like something just don't bother, change it. That would surely degrade an incredibly important characteristic of martial arts of discipline, willingness, openmindedness and studying deeply rather widely; just in my opinion!
> 
> In the system I practice now the founder made some changes to the original forms which make sense to me. I actually love the original versions too, so I hope to practice those too.


Yep. Our GM is an older Korean and is not particularly fond of the newest form set that has been adopted by many TKD schools/systems. He routinely goes into detail about how certain sections just do not work or have application. We have more than a few areas we do differently because of the. 
I can honestly say I agree with his assertion on everything, not from bias but from it just making sense. 
One of his/our pet peeves is that the errors & omissions are in the color belt form set and very little crosses over into the black belt forms. It is a real head scratcher that as a color belt a person is taught the 'wrong way' and then expected to make corrections later on. 
We do primarily 3 color belt form sets; (5) Pinan's created (brought to Okinawa) in the late 1890's, (8) Palgwe's created in 1967, and the (9) Taegueks's adopted in 1971. Some forms are elective (not a testing requirement) as a person goes through the belts. 
We do get pretty form heavy.


----------



## skribs (Dec 25, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I have a wholly different view of kata. When I added long-form kata (as opposed to the one-step kata) to my system, they were out there to support other training. Students are taught to use them as tools (warming up, practicing balance and stances, keeping moving when injured, etc.), rather than for the kata’s sake. So students are encouraged to work the kata to develop movement, for instance.
> If the only useful context for a kata is testing, I’m not sure I get the point.


As I said, an exercise and a performance.

I did not make these forms.  They were made before I was born.  I don't make the requirements in the organization that I am in.  You have a lot of luxuries in this case that I do not.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 25, 2021)

When I first started Martial Arts a kick was just a kick, a block was just a block, a punch was just a punch and a stance was just a stance.......but, with time, sweat, hard work, perseverance, maturity in the arts and the right Sensei a whole different art emerged....At that point a kick was not just a kick, a block was not just a block, a punch was not just a punch and a stance was not just a stance... The whole art of Okinawan Goju had come full circle. It was at this point I understood that what I had undertaken was a life time endeavor, a falling in love with this art. 
The old traditional arts were born out of a sense of secrecy because life itself was at stake, hence there was an art within an art where some of the most valued techniques were held back until trust and loyalty were demonstrated. 
Fast forward to modern times where students pay at times big bucks for classes and they want the whole ball of wax from day one.....this is a very fast pace time we are in.. 

There is no good or bad. right or wrong involved, just a different time and want in life. 

Back to the original question, who can change the kata.......who would want to if the kata contained everything you would want in a full well rounded system..


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 25, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Honestly, my view is that if it takes such a high level to understand the kata well enough to make basic adjustments, that’s a problem in the training model. It makes progress difficult and leaves major failure points when one of those few inevitably pass away.


Yes, it was a big problem a century or two ago when there were just a few students studying under a single master.  If that master passed before he taught his senior student the secret inner workings of his style, the style died as well.

Luckily, there is little held back nowadays in TMA and access to knowledge is widespread to the appropriate ranks. And the sheer number of practitioners insures this knowledge won't be lost.

But I'm curious, Gerry, as to what "basic adjustments" you are referring to.  Adjustments to cope with you bad knees?  Adjustments to make the form prettier for competition?  To change the application from a takedown to an actual throw?  I'd say the type of adjustments we're talking about is important.  Some may be well within the range of kata flexibility allowed for individual comfort or natural movement, others may change the application completely or go against the style's core principles.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes, it was a big problem a century or two ago when there were just a few students studying under a single master.  If that master passed before he taught his senior student the secret inner workings of his style, the style died as well.
> 
> Luckily, there is little held back nowadays in TMA and access to knowledge is widespread to the appropriate ranks. And the sheer number of practitioners insures this knowledge won't be lost.
> 
> But I'm curious, Gerry, as to what "basic adjustments" you are referring to.  Adjustments to cope with you bad knees?  Adjustments to make the form prettier for competition?  To change the application from a takedown to an actual throw?  I'd say the type of adjustments we're talking about is important.  Some may be well within the range of kata flexibility allowed for individual comfort or taste, others may change the application completely or go against the style's core principles.


The question to me in this context is changes to a form for personal, physical reasons, not actual global changes to the form. 
A very diff meaning to me.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 25, 2021)

Gyakuto said:


> There is also the concept of ‘Shu Ha Ri’ and if anyone does reach the ‘Ri’ stage, perhaps they might modify kata (although out of humbleness, most 8th Dan Hanshi suggest they’re still at the ‘Shu’ stage).





_Simon_ said:


> I'm unsure of the reference/meaning here, but it sounds good 🤣


Shu Ha Ri in Japan, is Shou Po Li in China, and Li (離) is the 3rd Trigram.






Lots to unpack from there: the Fire Snake, the sun dragon god Zhulong, and the Immortal Lu Dongbin, played by Jackie Chan in The Forbidden Kingdom, for starters.

Happy Holidays from your friendly neighborhood kung fu nerd.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 25, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> The question to me in this context is changes to a form for personal, physical reasons, not actual global changes to the form.
> A very diff meaning to me.


No argument in this at all.  Perfectly reasonable.  But such personal changes to _your_ form should not become the standard of the style to pass on to others.

Though, I believe Shimabuku taught 6'2" tall Marines a little different from 5' tall Okinawans, and these Marines returned to the US, passing on some of these adjustments so they became part of the style here in this country.  I guess the moral here is to respect the form and keep it as pure as possible within the realm of common sense exceptions.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 25, 2021)

There are sooo many different versions of Monk Carries Wine. 

White Tiger version, Tiger Crane version, Eight Immortal Fist.

Southern Shaolin Iron Wire version is my personal favorite, because if you ever get there, you'll know whoever made it up actually carried heavy barrels of the good stuff.

Not everyone is so lucky!


----------



## seasoned (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> No argument in this at all.  Perfectly reasonable.  But such personal changes to _your_ form should not become the standard of the style to pass on to others.
> 
> Though, I believe Shimabuku taught 6'2" tall Marines a little different from 5' tall Okinawans, and these Marines returned to the US, passing on some of these adjustments so they became part of the style here in this country.  I guess the moral here is to respect the form and keep it as pure as possible within the realm of common sense exceptions.


Some of those Marines dojo hopped and received little while others gained some loyalty and respect and returned to the states as representatives of the art. The one's that returned have made yearly trips back to Okinawa and kept the system pure....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> No argument in this at all.  Perfectly reasonable.  But such personal changes to _your_ form should not become the standard of the style to pass on to others.
> 
> Though, I believe Shimabuku taught 6'2" tall Marines a little different from 5' tall Okinawans, and these Marines returned to the US, passing on some of these adjustments so they became part of the style here in this country.  I guess the moral here is to respect the form and keep it as pure as possible within the realm of common sense exceptions.


He also made changes that he taught to different students at different times, even as radical as changing from the vertical punch (and later back again), so there are those differences to account for as well.

I am content to do kata as taught by my instructor, to the extent I am able. For example, I can no longer drop to one knee and get up again gracefully. Arthritis in my knees has done for me. But neither would I teach kata without it. I simply need someone more able-bodied to demonstrate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> He also made changes that he taught to different students at different times, even as radical as changing from the vertical punch (and later back again), so there are those differences to account for as well.
> 
> I am content to do kata as taught by my instructor, to the extent I am able. For example, I can no longer drop to one knee and get up again gracefully. Arthritis in my knees has done for me. But neither would I teach kata without it. I simply need someone more able-bodied to demonstrate.


And to be clear, I am disinclined to make changes to my forms as well.  I believe they are very valuable as they are.  I am not advocating that changes be made by just anyone, Willy-Nilly.  A hammer works just fine to pound a nail, I don’t need to reshape it to accomplish the same purpose.  

But coming from a background in Chinese arts, I guess we kinda just see things differently.  Change isn’t sacred, it can be done.  That does not alter the identity of the system, but it does make for a variation in that particular downstream lineage.  But Chinese arts often do not have a single central leadership.  Different lineages splinter and may have its own central leadership for a while, until someone within that lineage decides to make his own change.  Then people bicker and argue over who has the purest, or the realest, or the most legitimate version, but it’s all nonsense.  In their own way, they are all legitimate, even though we all have reasons for believing that ours is the best.  But such is life.  

Tibetan white crane has two sister systems, Hop Gar and Lama Pai.  All three came from an original method called Lions’ roar which, to my knowledge, no longer exists.  These three systems have each gone in their own directions, have developed their own forms and curriculum, but continue to share a foundational methodology that drives it all.  They were given different names because certain people in history decided to create a separation.  That’s fine, no problem, that was their decision.  In my opinion, they could all still be considered three branches of the same system (with sub-branches of their own) and could share a common name.  This would be reasonable, in my opinion.  

Choy Lay Fut has a couple of major lineages, one with many many many forms, too many for anyone to reasonably learn.  The other has a very limited list of forms.  Someone along the way made the decision to make that change.  They are both still Choy Lay Fut. 

These changes and splinters were done by people who may or may not have been genius martial masters.  We tend to look back and believe that they were, but I suspect that is debatable.  Maybe they grew into that role and became genius masters, but might not have been at the time.  But they were bold enough to make a decision and change how they did their training, and they stuck to it and it worked and survived down the generations.  I suspect many others failed. 

My point is, people make these decisions, not gods.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> And to be clear, I am disinclined to make changes to my forms as well.  I believe they are very valuable as they are.  I am not advocating that changes be made by just anyone, Willy-Nilly.



....


Flying Crane said:


> My point is, people make these decisions, not gods.


Agreed. I don't believe I know enough about the kata I study to change them in a positive way. So I won't. It's not about the sacredness of the system or the holiness of the founder. It's that I know far less than he, and I am aware of it.

I know many who teach or practice offshoots of the style I train in, some invented by themselves.  I wish them all well, and do not judge them or disrespect them. I have my own path to follow. I feel I have enough to keep me busy the remainder of my life without intentionally changing anything. When I fail to understand a principle taught by my kata, I presume it is my failure, rather than something wrong with the system that requires me to fix it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ....
> 
> Agreed. I don't believe I know enough about the kata I study to change them in a positive way. So I won't. It's not about the sacredness of the system or the holiness of the founder. It's that I know far less than he, and I am aware of it.
> 
> I know many who teach or practice offshoots of the style I train in, some invented by themselves.  I wish them all well, and do not judge them or disrespect them. I have my own path to follow. I feel I have enough to keep me busy the remainder of my life without intentionally changing anything. When I fail to understand a principle taught by my kata, I presume it is my failure, rather than something wrong with the system that requires me to fix it.


I can deeply appreciate your position on this.  I will just say: don’t sell yourself short.  I think you may have a stronger understanding than you give yourself credit for.  There may simply be no need for you to make changes.  That is probably true for most of us.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 25, 2021)

Sometime you change a form just because there is something missing.

For example, In the original form,

1. Your opponent right punches at your head, you use right arm to block his punch, and left palm to strike at his waist.
2. You then turn around, block another punch, and punch back.

During 1, since your opponent may drop his leading punching arm to block your left palm strike, this will open up for your right punch at his face.

What's the value by adding into that extra right punch? By changing

- right arm block, left palm strike into
- right arm block, left palm strike, right punch,

you have just added in a very important MA principle - attack the opening that you have just created.

IMO, that's a plus for this form.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How do you feel about spelling? I mean, I guess we could just make up our own symbols to mean whatever we were trying to say. Are we constrained by the formality of spelling and grammar?


Have you read anything on the internet? Even so-called "journalists" can't spell, nor can they compose a grammatically correct sentence.


skribs said:


> In the later forms, I don't even know if "changes" is the right word.


Fair enough. I'd say it's reasonable even if it's completely redone, just because the shared name ties back into the same shared roots.


skribs said:


> With that said, I think you're in a fairly unique spot at your rank.  I'm going to *pretend *for a minute that you're a lower belt than I am.  You would be expected to do the form our way, for a few reasons:
> 
> To help get ready for your next test
> So that all of the students are being taught the same way


The intended context for my comments was a guest or a random encounter at a competition. If I were there as a student, I should absolutely perform them the way your system does them. Taking the position that "your whole system is wrong and I'm right" would be ridiculous. Forms are a teaching tool, not Holy Writ. 
I've learned and practice the originals as well as the minor variants, because I'm a giant nerd and find the differences interesting. I teach the variants because they are the standard as set by our Kwanjangnim. I'm happy to teach the originals to any student interested, just as I will teach the Chang Hon forms to interested students. But the standard is not mine to set.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Have you read anything on the internet? Even so-called "journalists" can't spell, nor can they compose a grammatically correct sentence.


I would not argue the degradation of the language is cause to celebrate, nor to capitulate.  On the contrary, I consider these depredations to be casus belli. Given the opportunity, I would have them flogged, sir.


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 25, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I suspect that dislike comes from a lack of understanding. If the instructor doesn’t understand a section, he cannot teach it properly, and it should probably be changed to something he can.


Ah yeah I see what you mean, that is a fair point. I guess I mean moreso changing the kata within a system simply from a whim, and out of not liking it and perhaps impatience. Could encourage the students to adopt a similar mentality with regards to how they approach training.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would not argue the degradation of the language is cause to celebrate, nor to capitulate.  On the contrary, I consider these depredations to be casus belli. Given the opportunity, I would have them flogged, sir.


I can only Like a post once, so I'll quote it for truth. My children make fun of me because I text without abbreviations. I even use capitals and punctuation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes, it was a big problem a century or two ago when there were just a few students studying under a single master.  If that master passed before he taught his senior student the secret inner workings of his style, the style died as well.
> 
> Luckily, there is little held back nowadays in TMA and access to knowledge is widespread to the appropriate ranks. And the sheer number of practitioners insures this knowledge won't be lost.
> 
> But I'm curious, Gerry, as to what "basic adjustments" you are referring to.  Adjustments to cope with you bad knees?  Adjustments to make the form prettier for competition?  To change the application from a takedown to an actual throw?  I'd say the type of adjustments we're talking about is important.  Some may be well within the range of kata flexibility allowed for individual comfort or natural movement, others may change the application completely or go against the style's core principles.


That will depend who we're talking about making adjustments. The individual practitioner should, of course, be making the kinds of adjustments you refer to here (probably with the help of their instructor). If an instructor sees a reason to change a kata, it would be beyond those examples. It might be to replace a little-used technique with another that is more used. Or to challenge balance at a specific point in the kata. Or to include tactics not commonly found in kata (like level changes that are more than deeper stances).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> He also made changes that he taught to different students at different times, even as radical as changing from the vertical punch (and later back again), so there are those differences to account for as well.
> 
> I am content to do kata as taught by my instructor, to the extent I am able. For example, I can no longer drop to one knee and get up again gracefully. Arthritis in my knees has done for me. But neither would I teach kata without it. I simply need someone more able-bodied to demonstrate.


That's a problem I'm starting to run into, even in my own kata. I've had to re-start my program 3 times (4th one will be whenever Covid dies down enough for me to get back to teaching), so have no students who can do the demo for me. At some point, I'll lose the ability to demo the kneeling transitions (right now, it's just damned uncomfortable and less graceful).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you change a form just because there is something missing.


Or because you think there is something missing.  Maybe you're wrong and simply do not understand the form correctly.  Just suggesting that as an option.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Or because you think there is something missing.  Maybe you're wrong and simply do not understand the form correctly.  Just suggesting that as an option.


This is why one will need to have a good reason to change a form.

Lian Bu Quan was created as the 1st beginner level training form for The _Central_ Guoshu Institute back in 1928. Since the whole form didn't even have one back reverse punch, GM Han Ching-Tang changed a double palms strike into a back reverse punch (at 0.43 in the following clip). So change had been done by my long fist teacher's teacher.

My long fist teacher's Lian Bu Chuan.






My long fist brother's Lian Bu Chuan.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> , I can no longer drop to one knee and get up again gracefully.


I _used_ to love doing Isshinryu's Kusanku kata with the flying crescent, jump kicks and four kneeling moves.  But, like you and most other senior citizens, it's hard for me to get up gracefully after all the other physical demands this kata has.

Now, I envy other styles' version of Kusanku as they merely drop into a cat stance, rather than all the way down to a kneel.  However, without the kneel, the bunkai drastically changes - The single leg takedowns disappear (shown as a kneeling elbow).  If you look at the _Bubishi _illustrations, one of the big surprises for me was the stress on such moves in karate's early years.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why one will need to have a good reason to change a form.
> 
> Lian Bu Quan was created as the 1st beginner level training form for The _Central_ Guoshu Institute back in 1928. Since the whole form didn't even have one back reverse punch, GM Han Ching-Tang changed a double palms strike into a back reverse punch (at 0.43 in the following clip). So change had been done by my long fist teacher's teacher.
> 
> ...


Ok


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I _used_ to love doing Isshinryu's Kusanku kata with the flying crescent, jump kicks and four kneeling moves.  But, like you and most other senior citizens, it's hard for me to get up gracefully after all the other physical demands this kata has.
> 
> Now, I envy other styles' version of Kusanku as they merely drop into a cat stance, rather than all the way down to a kneel.  However, without the kneel, the bunkai drastically changes - The single leg takedowns disappear (shown as a kneeling elbow).  If you look at the _Bubishi _illustrations, one of the big surprises for me was the stress on such moves in karate's early years.


I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.


Happens to all of us. It's easy to convince ourselves that we're not *really* that old yet!


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 25, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.


I was known (40 years ago) for a very high jumping spinning crescent kick (as in Kusanku).  As I got older, when practicing, I did the lazy man's version, just simulating the airborne part.  A few years ago I tried it for real (the first time in about 20 years) and to my amazement, I felt like I got at least 4, maybe 5 feet of air under me, kicking head height, and nailed the spiderman-like landing.

Then, my reality check - it was recorded.  I was amazed again - I actually got a good 20 inches off the ground and kicked waist level!  While I didn't hurt myself and _did_ stick the landing, I realized my legs were no where close to where they used to be. So, I've been doing lunges and squats and they have helped, a little.

I learned, like you seemed to have done, was to not take your physical abilities for granted and assume you can perform like your younger self. (our self-perception is conveniently flattering)  You need to objectively test your true abilities as you age.  While this may be humiliating, (denial is so much more comforting) it's better than biting off more than you can chew and risk injury in practice or actual combat.


----------



## skribs (Dec 26, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've learned and practice the originals as well as the minor variants, because I'm a giant nerd and find the differences interesting. I teach the variants because they are the standard as set by our Kwanjangnim. I'm happy to teach the originals to any student interested, just as I will teach the Chang Hon forms to interested students. But the standard is not mine to set.


Maybe some time I'll get a chance to show you our "minor" variations.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 26, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.


I imagine most of us old(er) folks have been there in some form or fashion. A humbling, usually funny, and hopefully not too painful experience.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 26, 2021)

In the early days I thought forms shouldn't change. I was upset when the head of the style I was doing at the time, changed a kick because it was thought the original was too difficult for some people to do. I felt forms were sacred. At the peak of my development and training I was able to train with many senior masters and even the grandson of the founder. Each did the same form but with totally different interpretations and often blatant differences.  From that I learned forms are not sacred, nor is there a single right way to do things. (there however wrong ways to do things).  My conversations with the top masters who set organizational standards, allowed me to understand that without a unifying standard, the organization itself cannot exist, but that is a separate issue from the form itself and how it should or could be done. Changing a kick in a form is nothing more than a kick. Changing a kick in a form that is practiced by thousands within an organization is detrimental to the style. Adherence to the accepted standard is what makes the group.  
In my experience I have only met a small handful of people who really understood the meaning behind the forms.  With good kata the experience and application comes first and the solo form practice comes after. What I see most is people doing forms for the sake of doing forms. Like dance the meaning is found in the precision of the action. This is Shimejurusan kata. The purpose is self perfection through movement. with this type of performance, the application is irrelevant. This is why most people are unsure about what the actions really mean in application. Could be this , or could be that. It's all arbitrary. As if you were learning to dance the Tango and some instructors want your hand equal with your shoulder and others slightly below it. 
In contrast when the form is application based what is important is getting the job done. Esthetics don't matter that much. It's a matter of repetition and having the tool handy when needed. Forms are performing the needed task of repetition and mindfulness. If the application is forgotten to history or no longer relevant why practice it?  Change it to something functional.  That of course holds the presupposition that you know through experience, what is and what is not functional. 
Changing the form also has greater implications if the intended audience is more than just yourself.  The change would need to work across time and across a multitude of different people with different body types and limitations.

My own personal philosophy is Shu, Ha, Ri.
Shu, block type print and standard performance 
Ha, cursive writing with your own flavor but still recognizable.
Ri, your own personal signature developed over time and experience, no limits on movement or interpretation.
But when teaching, go back to Shu, the standard.

I didn't proof read this like I usually do. I hope it's legible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 26, 2021)

Nicely said.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 26, 2021)

skribs said:


> Maybe some time I'll get a chance to show you our "minor" variations.


That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.


----------



## skribs (Dec 26, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.


The one I think is really interesting is Palgwe #1, because it's the one that simultaneously has the most similarities and the most differences.  Not just at my school.  I've looked up several videos, and I've seen:

Sometimes there is a back stance for every block, sometimes just the double-knife-hand blocks (and the rest are front stance), sometimes a mix
Some steps are inside blocks in one school and outside blocks in another
Other minor changes that I can't remember off-hand because this was several years ago that I looked them up
I think in the case of #1, it's because of preference (for example, always turning into a back stance, or always blocking in back stance).  In the case of #2, it's because an inside block and outside block look very similar in a still image.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> In the early days I thought forms shouldn't change. I was upset when the head of the style I was doing at the time, changed a kick because it was thought the original was too difficult for some people to do. I felt forms were sacred. At the peak of my development and training I was able to train with many senior masters and even the grandson of the founder. Each did the same form but with totally different interpretations and often blatant differences.  From that I learned forms are not sacred, nor is there a single right way to do things. (there however wrong ways to do things).  My conversations with the top masters who set organizational standards, allowed me to understand that without a unifying standard, the organization itself cannot exist, but that is a separate issue from the form itself and how it should or could be done. Changing a kick in a form is nothing more than a kick. Changing a kick in a form that is practiced by thousands within an organization is detrimental to the style. Adherence to the accepted standard is what makes the group.
> In my experience I have only met a small handful of people who really understood the meaning behind the forms.  With good kata the experience and application comes first and the solo form practice comes after. What I see most is people doing forms for the sake of doing forms. Like dance the meaning is found in the precision of the action. This is Shimejurusan kata. The purpose is self perfection through movement. with this type of performance, the application is irrelevant. This is why most people are unsure about what the actions really mean in application. Could be this , or could be that. It's all arbitrary. As if you were learning to dance the Tango and some instructors want your hand equal with your shoulder and others slightly below it.
> In contrast when the form is application based what is important is getting the job done. Esthetics don't matter that much. It's a matter of repetition and having the tool handy when needed. Forms are performing the needed task of repetition and mindfulness. If the application is forgotten to history or no longer relevant why practice it?  Change it to something functional.  That of course holds the presupposition that you know through experience, what is and what is not functional.
> Changing the form also has greater implications if the intended audience is more than just yourself.  The change would need to work across time and across a multitude of different people with different body types and limitations.
> ...


Very well said.
Nail on the head.


----------



## rick_tsdmdk (Dec 28, 2021)

For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway.  What does it matter if the moves are changed?  Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.


----------



## kfman (Dec 28, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


I suggest teaching a form or kata as it was originally taught, and then show interpretations of techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 28, 2021)

rick_tsdmdk said:


> For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway.  What does it matter if the moves are changed?  Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.


Some people change the form just because they have fighting experience. They believe the change is more suitable for fighting.

At 0.06, he did a horizontal block before his horizontal palm strike.






At 0.03, he did a upward block before his 45 degree downward palm strike.






- Which one is more suitable to fighting?
- Which one is the original, and which one is the changed?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 28, 2021)

rick_tsdmdk said:


> For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway.  What does it matter if the moves are changed?  Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.


I'm sorry if that's the kind of training you've received.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 28, 2021)

If we compare the following 2 clips, it's very difficult to tell which one is the original form, and which one is the changed form.

At 0.29 before he finished the form, he did a double palms strike. That double palms strike was the original move.






At 0.28 before he finished the form, he did a back reverse punch. This back reverse punch was the change made by my long fist teacher's teacher.


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.


Here's one I've come across as I'm developing my own curriculum.

I was taught the inside block as chambered from your ear, but in the Taegeuk forms your hand is chambered out away from your shoulder.  In most cases, I want to start with the Taegeuk way of doing things, even if I like the Palgwe style better (when in Rome).  However, this is one that I may start with the Palgwe style.  I would then go back at an intermediate belt, when I start to teach variations of the techniques, and correct the Taegeuk form.

I figure it's just one detail, and by the time they get black belt, they'd have spent more time knowing it than not.

It's something I'm 50/50 on.  I feel like chambering by the ear is easier when using the lead hand, which most of the inside blocks in the Taegeuks are with the other hand.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2021)

skribs said:


> Here's one I've come across as I'm developing my own curriculum.
> 
> I was taught the inside block as chambered from your ear, but in the Taegeuk forms your hand is chambered out away from your shoulder.  In most cases, I want to start with the Taegeuk way of doing things, even if I like the Palgwe style better (when in Rome).  However, this is one that I may start with the Palgwe style.  I would then go back at an intermediate belt, when I start to teach variations of the techniques, and correct the Taegeuk form.
> 
> ...


This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here. 

How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block? 
What does the body do? 
What does the blocking arm do? 
What path and trajectory does the blocking arm take? 
Are the two mechanics (arm/body) different? 
What does the ready hand do? What path does it take? 
At what direction is the ending force of the directed?
Can there be an offensive quality to a high bloc?

These are details seldom ingested by color belts, and sadly, even 1st Dan's at many schools. So, I am really trying get into the minutia of the block.

If this post does not generate well, I will start a new thread.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here.
> 
> How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block?
> What does the body do?
> ...


Maybe the main question should be, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVE?  

Is it simply to keep you from getting hit in the head and purely a defensive move?  Or is it, as you ask at the end, an offensive move, capable of not only this, but causing pain to the attacking limb and getting the attacker off balance and out of position, while putting you in optimum position for a counter strike?

This will affect the answers to _all_ the other questions you pose.  Understanding the purpose and capabilities of the technique is key to how to execute it most effectively.


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here.
> 
> How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block?
> What does the body do?
> ...



Here is the plan I have in my curriculum:

White belt learns where the block starts and where it goes.  They learn the general path and trajectory.  This will be reinforced by an instructor with a foam blocker - if they don't follow the proper path, they get a big block of foam to the face _(at low velocity)_.
Yellow belt learns the details of how to chamber so you can get the rotation at the end.  Oh, and the rotation at the end.
Green belt learns the exact details of the execution, and and the "why" for those details.  
Blue belts are there. _(As far as high blocks are concerned)._
Red belts really hone in on the details, and are expected to be pretty accurate with the basic white belt techniques.  I do anticipate some slop in the blue and red belt techniques.
I plan to execute blocks during the test, in which I will look for the details appropriate to the belt level.  I will also ask these sorts of questions to the red and black belt testers.  Not the exact questions you're asking, but the general spirit of the questions.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU (Dec 29, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


I have black belts in Tracy Kenpo and American Kenpo. I have taught "my" version of American Kenpo for fifty years.


Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


Once you're a black belt, the art is yours. I studied up to black belt in Tracy Kenpo and American Kenpo. I then threw out all the forms.  I do not like forms. In Kenpo, in my opinion, the techniques are like mini forms anyway. After twenty years of teaching just adults, i sat down and shorten all the techniques. Many were just too repetitive. I just teach adults and my students loved the shorten techniques.
When you're a black belt, or a Sifu, I consider the forms and techs mine and I'll adjust anyway I want. I personally feel that I have improved the art, since my students like what I did.
Therefore, if you want to shorten even the forms, if you're a black belt, go ahead and make yourself happy!
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2021)

Someone changed

- bicycle into motorcycle.
- horse wagon into car.
- DOS into WINDOW.
- pager into cell phone.
- ...

Which one is better?

IMO, if you have never changed your form, you are just a good copy machine. You have no contribution to the MA world.


----------



## Steve (Dec 29, 2021)

Speaking to the OP, I don't know who gets to change kata, but with regards to technique, that's going to happen whether you want it to or not.  Everyone who uses techniques will change them and adapt them for a number of reasons in order to make them work.  Watch 10 different people do the same armbar, and you will be able to point out a bunch of things that are common and a bunch of things that are different.  If you're doing it right, it works... and if it works, you're doing it right.

It's like cooking.  You might be making gumbo, and for it to be a gumbo it needs to meet certain criteria.  But I've never heard of two people making gumbo exactly the same way.  But success is in the bowl.  

Bigger picture, this question, not competition or self defense or anything else, is really what will determine whether your style is a TMA or not.  In my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if you have never changed your form, you are just a good copy machine. You have no contribution to the MA world.


Well no, this is clearly not true.  First, that alone certainly does not make you nothing but a copy machine.  Second, there are  many other ways to measure whether or not you have made a contribution to the martial arts world.  And let’s be honest, there is no requirement to do so.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Well no, this is clearly not true.  First, that alone certainly does not make you nothing but a copy machine.  Second, there are  many other ways to measure whether or not you have made a contribution to the martial arts world.  And let’s be honest, there is no requirement to do so.


You may use DOS all your life. You are still just a DOS user.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may use DOS all your life. You are still just a DOS user.


Ok, this is really no kind of comparison at all.  If I kick the living ***** out of everyone who ever tried to mug me, but I never alter one of my forms, I am a failure?  Just a “copy machine?”  C’mon man, you know this is nonsense. 

One does not need to make a contribution to the world of MA.  Perhaps One never teaches, never passes it along to another generation, just keeps what he has learned to himself, yet effectively use it when there are no other options.  So He hasn’t “contributed”.  So what?  There is no requirement, and it in no way lessons one’s practice.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if you have never changed your form, you are just a good copy machine.



More important than changing a traditional form is changing HOW you execute that form.  

My form's execution has changed over the years.  My increased understanding of the form's technique and how to use _my _body in that context to best execute the technique's goals, has led to my current forms looking (and feeling) much different than even a decade ago.  Yes, the forms have been tweaked a little (2%) but the moves as I originally learned them are all there - only the way I do them has changed.  The words are the same, but my accent is not.

When in another part of the English speaking regions, people have a tendency to copy the local accent, whether it be Cockney, The Bronx, or the Deep South.  The result is they sound sort of stupid.  So, there are things we are meant not to copy.  I wasn't meant to copy my sensei's way of doing a side kick, aside from following proper mechanics.  Bill Wallace, Chuck Norris and Joe Lewis all had great side kicks, and each was different.    

We are not so much a vehicle to change the form, but rather the form is a vehicle to change us.  Self-change is the type of change that counts most IMO.  I've got plenty to work on there, without trying to change and second guess a master's traditional form.  I'll leave that to them.


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone changed
> 
> - bicycle into motorcycle.
> - horse wagon into car.
> ...


There's also a phrase: Don't Reinvent the Wheel.  Mythbusters even tried it.  They put square wheels on a truck, and it worked pretty horribly.


----------



## Steve (Dec 29, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, this is really no kind of comparison at all.  If I kick the living ***** out of everyone who ever tried to mug me, but I never alter one of my forms, I am a failure?  Just a “copy machine?”  C’mon man, you know this is nonsense.
> 
> One does not need to make a contribution to the world of MA.  Perhaps One never teaches, never passes it along to another generation, just keeps what he has learned to himself, yet effectively use it when there are no other options.  So He hasn’t “contributed”.  So what?  There is no requirement, and it in no way lessons one’s practice.


Hold on.  Is fighting important now?  Just trying to keep up here.


----------



## Steve (Dec 29, 2021)

skribs said:


> There's also a phrase: Don't Reinvent the Wheel.  Mythbusters even tried it.  They put square wheels on a truck, and it worked pretty horribly.


Are you saying the wheels on your car have never been reinvented?  are they same as the wheels on a wagon?  Or even the same as on similar cars from 30 years ago?  I think any similarity they have is fairly superficial.

there’s also the possibility that reinventing the wheel might be valuable, but mythbusters just did it poorly.  
There was an episode of top gear or their follow on show where one of them took the wheels off the car and put an entirely new tread system on it.  Worked surprisingly well.  I’d say he reinvented the wheel better than mythbusters.   

Point is, with changes, failure could indicate that the idea is not sound.  Could also be execution… a good idea poorly done .


----------



## Martial D (Dec 29, 2021)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


My take...

My take is that way too much mystery and almost ..worship..is shown to these martial artists of antiquity. Do we still drive model T Ford's? No ..the science and technology keeps advancing..changing.. bettering.

But with martial arts ..for some...puzzling.. reason...many believe the penultimate was just nailed x hundred years ago and should remain frozen there forever because it's the ultimate truth.

Who can change Kata or forms? That depends if you view your martial art as something more akin to science, or something more akin to religion.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 29, 2021)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> I have black belts in Tracy Kenpo and American Kenpo. I have taught "my" version of American Kenpo for fifty years.


That isn't what you said earlier...
You said you had earned a Blue belt under Tracy and a Brown under Parker. You then self-promoted to 10th Dan. By your own statement, your highest earned rank is Brown belt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2021)

There are

- DOS creator (those who creates a form).
- DOS users (those who trains the original form).
- WINDOW creator (those who changes a form).
- WINDOW users (those who trains the changed form).

A DOS user should not say that the WINDOW users use the "not pure OS".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2021)

Daisy wheel printer was the best printer until the inkjet printer came out. Change is always good.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Daisy wheel printer was the best printer until the inkjet printer came out. Change is always good.
> 
> View attachment 27848


Once again, blanket statements and absolutes are unlikely to be true.  Context usually matters.


----------



## Unkogami (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ... Change is always good.


Really? Remember New Coke?


----------



## Steve (Dec 29, 2021)

Unkogami said:


> Really? Remember New Coke?


New coke was fine, but they underestimated the power of sentimentality.  Not too long ago, Kraft  changed the formula for their cheese powder.  They did it smart, though… didn’t tell anyone for several months.  By the time they announced the change, people had to admit they didn’t really  notice.  I guess the point is, the change might be good, but how you do it matters.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2021)

Unkogami said:


> Really? Remember New Coke?


May be I should say. "Change that will last is always good."

Both IBM 5520 Administrative System and IBM Displaywriter system were good. But it didn't last long.


----------



## Steve (Dec 29, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be I should say. "Change that will last is always good."
> 
> Both IBM 5520 Administrative System and IBM Displaywriter system were good. But it didn't last long.


Amigas were  good too.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be I should say. "Change that will last is always good."
> 
> Both IBM 5520 Administrative System and IBM Displaywriter system were good. But it didn't last long.


You are really showing your age with all these old printer references!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be I should say. "Change that will last is always good."
> 
> Both IBM 5520 Administrative System and IBM Displaywriter system were good. But it didn't last long.


Maybe you should just say, change is sometimes good.


----------



## Steve (Dec 30, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Maybe you should just say, change is sometimes good.


All change is good sometimes.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are
> 
> - DOS creator (those who creates a form).
> - DOS users (those who trains the original form).
> ...


Why not? Windows was developed as an overlay for MS-DOS systems. It wasn't intended to be an OS, but an Operating Environment. So your putative DOS user would be correct.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Daisy wheel printer was the best printer until the inkjet printer came out. Change is always good.


Change is sometimes good. Certainly not always. Far from it.


----------



## Hyoho (Jan 4, 2022)

The OP used the word "kata". In Japanese sense there are two types. One is the shape or form of a waza (tried and tested technique). We break down the waza into parts to examine intricate detail to advance in it's practice. The second is a totally made up form which could contain bits of a waza. Nevertheless its "made up" So with this we can change it at will since had little meaning in the first place apart from practice. Anyone who adds or tries to change waza is probably trying to because they could not do the original one. Maybe some offshoot of an original ryu that says, Ah, we do it this way because my teacher did it this way. There is always a grey area and a headmaster does have the intellectual copyright to make certain minor alterations. Its up to us as a new leader to be able to understand ones teachers character from the original waza.


----------



## bill miller (Jan 4, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> No argument in this at all. Perfectly reasonable. But such personal changes to _your_ form should not become the standard of the style to pass on to others.


If the basics of the system are followed, and, more importantly understood, other than the common changes, the kata/hyung/form should stay faithful to its' core concept. Physical changes will happen for many reasons, such as body type, and even where you train. If the core concepts remain then I don't feel there is any harm done.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 4, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> But such personal changes to _your_ form should not become the standard of the style to pass on to others.


If the change is better than the original, there is no reason to keep the original.

This is the original form. As far as I knew, very few people still practice this original form.






This is the changed form. Please notice the add in "bow-arrow stance back reverse punch" (at 0.27). If a "bow-arrow stance back reverse punch" is missing in the basic training form, the original design was not perfect.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 4, 2022)

I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.

But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it?  Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work?  I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work.  I would write my own.  I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better.  It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.  

Maybe there is a parallel here…


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.
> 
> But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it?  Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work?  I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work.  I would write my own.  I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better.  It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
> 
> Maybe there is a parallel here…


I see this from multiple perspectives. From a perspective of experience, I can see value in playing around with forms. With experience, we can discover what works best/better, at least for ourselves. This can and should only come after a person is fully immersed and experienced in the form. This takes time; much of it to remove any preconceived bias a person may have, regardless of where this comes from. 
I compare this to what happens after a person graduate's school (grade, college, graduate, etc...) and enters the work world. Reality is usually a mild to very hard slap in the face. Even though they have a lot of knowledge and 'know' a certain skillset (form) they do not yet know how to use it or leverage it to get the most out of it. 

A person newer to their training may see forms as a slow, antiquated way to learn. In a streamlined, stripped-down version of training solely focused on the ring (which is rules bound) or bare knuckles pugilism, there is truth in this. But there is equally as much risk in not being able to process this raw information, becoming a 'bad' person with a skillset that can be downright dangerous. This is where the time quotient comes in. 
It is different for each person but the time it takes to become fully immersed in a form is time well spent. There is Always something to learn. There is too much narrative that says forms have no application. I cannot speak to all forms because I simply do not know all forms. But when I break down any form that I do know into its constituent parts, I see tons and tons of application. To say this is satisfying is a gross understatement. Learning forms, doing them over and over imprints this knowledge on us. 
Time very well spent.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.
> 
> But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it?  Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work?  I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work.  I would write my own.  I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better.  It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
> 
> Maybe there is a parallel here…


I think a more accurate writing analogy might be editing rather than revising.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 5, 2022)

This is a bona fide Hung Ga Kuen disciple and Shuai Jiao competitor freestyling.  This is basically half of how I train nowadays, just gliding through a room like this.

It may look easy, it isn't.  It takes years of grueling training.  But at some point, just like this dude, you will no longer be limited to canonical forms.  You will be able to mix it up and move through space like this, and it all has combat potential, not to mention health. 

Seen below are elements of Tiger Crane, Five Animal, and even Iron Wire, completely detached from how the sequences are learned.  Check out this man's channel for some awesome Chinese wrestling clips and other kung fu nerdery.  This is the good stuff.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2022)

If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.

If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.

An "improved" kata...


----------



## Blindside (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.
> 
> But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it?  Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work?  I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work.  I would write my own.  I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better.  It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
> 
> Maybe there is a parallel here…


I would view it as a teaching curriculum, as a new teacher you may adopt (or be given) a methodology that you like but as you become more experienced you may find different ways of teaching that particular methodology that work better for you.  After 20 years of teaching do you rip up that tweaked model and start over?  I assume that is why Goju-Ryu and Isshin-Ryu have two different versions of Seiunchin.  A more extreme example is where Isshin-Ryu teaches Seisan as one of the first kata taught and Goju as an advanced kata.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 5, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think a more accurate writing analogy might be editing rather than revising.


Could be, but the point is, it’s a finished work. I wouldn’t try to alter it.  On another level, I can orally tell the story of the Lord of the Rings to my son, reciting from memory. I will definitely not remember every part of it, every scene, every bit of dialog.  But I can remember the overall story and I can convey it to him, so now he knows the story, even if abridged.  That does not change the story in the sense of making it a different story.  It is just abridged.  So to the question of How much change to a kata before it is something else entirely?  Well, I think there can be a lot of room for that.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.
> 
> If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.
> 
> An "improved" kata...View attachment 27893


If the point is that there are SOME folks who shouldn't... sure.  In the hands of an incompetent, you may have significant harm done, such as with Potato Jesus.  I would guess that we all agree that some folks shouldn't mess around.  



But this shouldn't suggest that NONE should attempt it, because in the hands of someone competent, the modifications could be as much a masterpiece as the original.  Point being... while some shouldn't... there are many who could... possibly even _should.  _So, the question is, who are those people?


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Could be, but the point is, it’s a finished work. I wouldn’t try to alter it.  On another level, I can orally tell the story of the Lord of the Rings to my son, reciting from memory. I will definitely not remember every part of it, every scene, every bit of dialog.  But I can remember the overall story and I can convey it to him, so now he knows the story, even if abridged.  That does not change the story in the sense of making it a different story.  It is just abridged.  So to the question of How much change to a kata before it is something else entirely?  Well, I think there can be a lot of room for that.


This is exactly what happens, and there is not one thing anyone can do about it.  When you learn something... anything... from one person, and then turn around and teach it to another person, it will be different.  Maybe not very different, but different nonetheless.  Could be one or two little things that you don't even realize you do differently. 

And when that person teaches another person, it will be different yet.

The question isn't, IMO, whether one should or shouldn't change kata or technique.  Everyone who learns them changes them in ways small and large.  Really, this is just an academic discussion over who can or should change things _officially.  _ who gets to say, "This is what it was, but from now on, this is what it is."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 5, 2022)

Steve said:


> "This is what it was, but from now on, this is what it is."


A: Dear master! Why did you change the jumping kick into a jumping knee strike?
B: People said that CMA doesn't have flying knee. From now on, CMA has "flying knee" because I add it into our CMA system.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 5, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.
> 
> If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.
> 
> An "improved" kata...View attachment 27893


Well said.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Could be, but the point is, it’s a finished work. I wouldn’t try to alter it.  On another level, I can orally tell the story of the Lord of the Rings to my son, reciting from memory. I will definitely not remember every part of it, every scene, every bit of dialog.  But I can remember the overall story and I can convey it to him, so now he knows the story, even if abridged.  That does not change the story in the sense of making it a different story.  It is just abridged.  So to the question of How much change to a kata before it is something else entirely?  Well, I think there can be a lot of room for that.


Abridged = accurate? I cannot agree with that. It would have to be a very, very short story. Something like the Lord of the Rings would be ripe for all kinds of interpretation. 
There is just too much depth in forms to be okay with the abridged version. Enough of that going on already.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 5, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> but the point is, it’s a finished work. I wouldn’t try to alter it.


The ending of the "Chinese one arm sword man against the Japanese blind sword man" was the Chinese one arm sword man killed the Japanese blind sword man. When that movie was shown in Japan, they had to change the ending as the blind Japanese sword man killed the Chinese one arm sword man.

The title used in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China was "The one arm sword man fight against the blind sword man".





The title used in Japan was "The blind sword man defeats the one arm sword man". Please notice the word "defeat" used in that title.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 8, 2022)

Hmm. First lets set aside passing on kata for style preservation, where you don't make changes and pass it on as it was received.

From my experience, kata are a sort of mnemonic device for learning.  The moves were put into place with multiple meanings from simple block/punch/kick applications to countermoves to standup grappling applications in the movement.  The movement itself wasn't just ONE thing.  Most of the time when people make changes, it is because they favor a specific application to the movement and adjust the kata to make that application more obvious or more effective and lose out on the other nuanced layers.  This is why someone who knows the meaning of the movements can "tweak" or make adjustments to the kata to highlight those applications for further study.  

The problem with the above is that certain kata were taught as an individual study to individuals by the teacher and the teacher, who has "full transmission" of the kata would instruct it differently to each person based on their traits (height/temperament etc.) to give that person the full benefit. This was the way some Okinawan karate was done before the advent of "styles". Now, each person takes what was taught to them individually and goes out to teach other people and each person says it is "the right way".

I remember one time in talking to another student who couldn't make an application work for himself so he changed the movements/application to something he liked better.  The moves were very similar, the flow was very similar and if you didn't know better it would just seem like that was the way it was supposed to be.  The problem was the original move he took out was the only place where this idea/technique was presented in the forms, so anyone who might have learned from him if he became an instructor also would have lost this piece of knowledge and had a gap in their arsenal and personal study of the art.

In my study, I keep the kata the way they were taught to me.  I will take pieces and parts and experiment with them in my own study and do make changes while digging deeper.  But, when I instruct that kata, it is back to the way it was taught to me.  Why? Because I may not know what knowledge I may lose if I change something to fit me, or what a student may lose if I make a change based on what I think is best.

As my instructor has said, "Make it your own....don't make it up on your own."


----------



## geezer (Jan 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> If the point is that there are SOME folks who shouldn't... sure.  In the hands of an incompetent, you may have significant harm done, such as with Potato Jesus.  I would guess that we all agree that some folks shouldn't mess around.
> 
> View attachment 27894
> 
> ...


Great example. The upper recreation of the damaged portrait of Jesus was inspired. The lower "restoration" not so much (yawn).

BTW I like the upper one so much that I plan to get "Ecce Mono" as it has become known, on a tee shirt!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> in the hands of someone competent, the modifications could be as much a masterpiece as the original.


Agree with you 100% on this.

For the original Chinese wrestling hip throw, you need to turn your back into your opponent. Since when you turn, your opponent can control your waist and drag you down to the ground.











My senior SC brother changed it into a sideway entry without body turning. IMO, his new change is much better than the original.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 9, 2022)

punisher73 said:


> I remember one time in talking to another student who couldn't make an application work for himself so he changed the movements/application to something he liked better. The moves were very similar, the flow was very similar and if you didn't know better it would just seem like that was the way it was supposed to be. The problem was the original move he took out was the only place where this idea/technique was presented in the forms, so anyone who might have learned from him if he became an instructor also would have lost this piece of knowledge and had a gap in their arsenal and personal study of the art.
> 
> In my study, I keep the kata the way they were taught to me. I will take pieces and parts and experiment with them in my own study and do make changes while digging deeper. But, when I instruct that kata, it is back to the way it was taught to me. Why? Because I may not know what knowledge I may lose if I change something to fit me, or what a student may lose if I make a change based on what I think is best.


I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.


----------



## geezer (Jan 9, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.


Don't you think that depends on whether there are other teachers in the same system who might have that knowledge and be willing to share? Or, if with time and practice the application or concept behind the movements becomes apparent to the teacher?

I know that both of the above have happened to me. In some cases an associate or more experienced instructor has explained application where I was uncertain, and in other cases, the application of some sequences became clearer after working with the movements for a long time, usually testing stuff with a partner.

Sometimes the lightbulb went on after working with something very different... like Wing Chun giving me insight into Escrima and vice versa.

As a youth, the grown-ups often told me to shut up and listen ...to _really_ listen. It was good advice ...had I listened .

Ironically, I eventually realized that I also could learn a lot _by talking_  ...you know, explaining, demonstrating and doing. The stuff I figured out that way, I never forgot!

Sometimes as traditionalists we emphasize the first method too much, even to the point of preventing learning through experimentation and our arts suffer for it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 9, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.


All my life, I cannot find any application for this right arm movement in the following clips. I was taught it was throwing a dart. I tried to throw a drat that way. It just didn't work well.

If I can't even explain this to myself, how can I teach this to others? I just have to change it into an upward block instead.

Can anybody be able to come up a  MA application for this?

Sometime people change form just because some moves in the original form don't make sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Anyone who adds or tries to change waza is probably trying to because they could not do the original one.


That’s an overstatement in the extreme. There are a lot of reasons one might change waza. Your statement implies waza is inherently perfect, otherwise we’d have to allow that sometimes the change is just an improvement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.
> 
> But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it?  Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work?  I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work.  I would write my own.  I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better.  It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
> 
> Maybe there is a parallel here…


I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think a more accurate writing analogy might be editing rather than revising.


Or, in some cases, translating - where there are decisions like whether to preserve word choice, or idiomatic meaning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.
> 
> If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.
> 
> An "improved" kata...View attachment 27893


So nobody understands kata??


----------



## bill miller (Jan 9, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All my life, I cannot find any application for this right arm movement in the following clips. I was taught it was throwing a dart. I tried to throw a drat that way. It just didn't work well.
> 
> If I can't even explain this to myself, how can I teach this to others? I just have to change it into an upward block instead.
> 
> ...


It looks to me like a deflection setting up a joint lock. I think it may depend on the following movements, or maybe the preceding ones.


----------



## geezer (Jan 9, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> So nobody understands kata??


Depends on the person ...and the kata, I guess.

Most of the martial arts aren't nearly as old as people think they are. Same goes for the forms. And they all change with each generation. Some things are forgotten, or understood differently and some things are rediscovered, and new things are added. That's just the way things are.

Though I don't practice karate, I'm told that modern karate kata are done differently than ...say Funakoshi's, which were different from the old Okinawan stuff, which was different from the Chinese stuff like Ngo Cho, which is a descendent, but different from ancestral Chinese Crane boxing, and so on...

The forms and techniques of my core art, Wing Chun have similarly changed over time. Interestingly, one of it's ancestors was also Crane boxing. But even the most traditional WC doesn't look much like Japanese karate or Korean TKD. Yet they all share some common ancestry.

So while kata/forms are a useful tool for passing on knowledge, they are not some form of ancient, immutable embodiment of absolute truth.

I do _not_ believe forms should be casually changed or discarded, but neither should they be held up as something sacred, mystical and eternal. That borders on a sort of ...martial arts _idolatry_.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 9, 2022)

bill miller said:


> It looks to me like a deflection setting up a joint lock. I think it may depend on the following movements, or maybe the preceding ones.







That right arm move is at the end of this form (at 2.00). By referencing with the move before and after, will you be able to figure out the application for it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 10, 2022)

geezer said:


> Depends on the person ...and the kata, I guess.
> 
> Most of the martial arts aren't nearly as old as people think they are. Same goes for the forms. And they all change with each generation. Some things are forgotten, or understood differently and some things are rediscovered, and new things are added. That's just the way things are.
> 
> ...


Agreed, on all points.

And I'll go farther and say that if someone doesn't understand a kata, they probably shouldn't teach that kata (except as a basic movement exercise) until they do. And if a kata is difficult to understand at a basic level, that might be a reason to change it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 10, 2022)

geezer said:


> Don't you think that depends on whether there are other teachers in the same system who might have that knowledge and be willing to share? Or, if with time and practice the application or concept behind the movements becomes apparent to the teacher?


In cases where another teacher of the system has the missing knowledge, it might be better to wait and learn directly from that teacher rather than practicing an empty movement which you don't understand. Reason being - when a teacher and student don't understand a given movement then it can start to diverge from its functional form. If you go through multiple generations of instructors then this becomes more and more likely.

I'll give a specific example. @wab25 likes to cite the example of a movement in many karate forms which involves stepping forward with a "down block." He believes this movement is actually supposed to represent a certain type of takedown. I find this quite plausible. It certainly would be much more functional than the idea of stepping forward to block a kick which would have been out of range if you hadn't stepped forward.

_However _- _if_ this is indeed the original intended meaning of the movement in the kata, then the overwhelming majority of karateka are performing the movement incorrectly when they practice. I'm familiar with the takedown in question and the body mechanics necessary to make it work are drastically different from the way most people perform the stepping "down block" in their kata. If you learn the kata the way most people practice it, then I don't think it will give you any advantage in learning the takedown later.

Now if you learned the takedown first and practiced it to functionality with a partner and then learned the kata using the correct body mechanics for the takedown, then I think you could get some practical use out of drilling that step of the kata when you didn't have a training partner handy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 10, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?


Sure, and I think Ive made it clear that I find this acceptable too.  I can see it both ways.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 10, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> So nobody understands kata??


I think that different people mean different things when they say “understand” kata/forms.  I also think that often, people are willing to make things more difficult/complicated/obscure than they need to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 10, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Now if you learned the takedown first and practiced it to functionality with a partner and then learned the kata using the correct body mechanics for the takedown, then I think you could get some practical use out of drilling that step of the kata when you didn't have a training partner handy.


I really think this is the better order for using kata, except where it's a movement exercise. Understanding the technique (or techniques, where a kata movement can be used in several) at a basic level gives the kata significant meaning, and informs the student's practice.


----------



## Steve (Jan 10, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Agreed, on all points.
> 
> And I'll go farther and say that if someone doesn't understand a kata, they probably shouldn't teach that kata (except as a basic movement exercise) until they do. And if a kata is difficult to understand at a basic level, that might be a reason to change it.



When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean to you?  We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms.  How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?  

Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine.  Or alternatively, when folks talk about truly understanding forms, they have in mind someone who has extensive experience outside of the forms... I'm sure there are some folks out there with experience.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> So nobody understands kata??


I'm sure some do. I don't know who those people are. I'll bet they don't advertise much, though. Just a thought.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I think that different people mean different things when they say “understand” kata/forms.  I also think that often, people are willing to make things more difficult/complicated/obscure than they need to be.


That's why bunkai has different levels. What looks like a middle body block and a punch is exactly that. The question is what else it could be, for those interested in pursuing it. The information is there, waiting to be explored, unless one either isn't interested, can't figure out how to make it work, or changes it to fit their understanding of the application instead.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with not caring to take it beyond the surface level. I find it mighty fascinating, personally.  It's not about how complicated it needs to be to me. It's about how interesting it can be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 10, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?


Only in the sense of passing on a curriculum which is no longer that which was taught to you.  

Say I learn kata A with taught meaning of B, but I don't care for that and change the kata to C and the meaning to D. Fine. But if I am an instructor, my students will think the style contains kata B with meaning D, and kata A is lost. Is it then the same style? Is the kata still named whatever it was originally?


----------



## skribs (Jan 10, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's why bunkai has different levels. What looks like a middle body block and a punch is exactly that. The question is what else it could be, for those interested in pursuing it. The information is there, waiting to be explored, unless one either isn't interested, can't figure out how to make it work, or changes it to fit their understanding of the application instead.
> 
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with not caring to take it beyond the surface level. I find it mighty fascinating, personally.  It's not about how complicated it needs to be to me. It's about how interesting it can be.


In my opinion, lots of the techniques in the forms don't even make sense at the surface level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean to you?  We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms.  How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?
> 
> Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine.  Or alternatively, when folks talk about truly understanding forms, they have in mind someone who has extensive experience outside of the forms... I'm sure there are some folks out there with experience.


You're correct that there are a number of ways to define "understaning a kata". I don't think it needs to include fight experience, but it could.

My response a reference to someone else earlier referring to kata being difficult to understand (as in, if you think you should change it, you don't understand it). To me, "understanding a kata" is simply understanding what the moves are (the intent) and the foundation for those movements. I don't think that requires fight experience, but it would certainly help. If a judoka can throw a resisting opponent during randori, they likely understand the basic foundation of the throw they are using, whether they've ever used that in a fight ("on the street" or in competition) or not.

I expect there are others who'd define "understanding" differently, and I'd hold my statement as true from that perspective, as well: if you don't understand the kata (by your own definition), you probably aren't ready to teach it to others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sure some do. I don't know who those people are. I'll bet they don't advertise much, though. Just a thought.


If there are few who understand them, that leads me to two questions:

Why aren't they advertising that knowedge, so others can find them to gain that understanding?
How can those kata possibly be passed along with any efficacy by people who don't understand them?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Only in the sense of passing on a curriculum which is no longer that which was taught to you.
> 
> Say I learn kata A with taught meaning of B, but I don't care for that and change the kata to C and the meaning to D. Fine. But if I am an instructor, my students will think the style contains kata B with meaning D, and kata A is lost. Is it then the same style? Is the kata still named whatever it was originally?


If kata can never be changed, and kata helps define a style, doesn't that doom the style to never being able to progress as things are understood better? Does a single movement change really make it no longer the same art?


----------



## seasoned (Jan 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean?


When we first learn a kata it would appear it is made up of, punch, block, kick, stance and a pattern of foot movement that is unique to each kata as in, turns, stepping in different directions and moving forward or back. As a new student this will suffice and lead into sparring and various drills simulating fighting experiences. The above is the basic structure of a mid 1950s Okinawan GoJu dojo. 
This is only the surface of this art...........if this is all you learned you could fair well with your everyday street fighter.
What is yet to come as you approach black belt is the crux of your learning.  One small example is, you learn that all blocks are also strikes and all strikes and blocks lead into throws and takedowns.... 


Steve said:


> We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms.  How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?


Law enforcement and military begin their training on simulators


Steve said:


> Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine.


Traditional "old" kata are about fighting..
Side note: Mid 50s dojo had no sparring gear at all......block or get hit.


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> You're correct that there are a number of ways to define "understaning a kata". I don't think it needs to include fight experience, but it could.
> 
> My response a reference to someone else earlier referring to kata being difficult to understand (as in, if you think you should change it, you don't understand it). To me, "understanding a kata" is simply understanding what the moves are (the intent) and the foundation for those movements. I don't think that requires fight experience, but it would certainly help. If a judoka can throw a resisting opponent during randori, they likely understand the basic foundation of the throw they are using, whether they've ever used that in a fight ("on the street" or in competition) or not.
> 
> I expect there are others who'd define "understanding" differently, and I'd hold my statement as true from that perspective, as well: if you don't understand the kata (by your own definition), you probably aren't ready to teach it to others.


Fair enough.  It gets confusing when folks refer to other things, like tea ceremonies, calligraphy, etc.  This makes sense, but in those efforts, in addition to the esoteric benefits of the activity, you also get a cup of tea, or a work of art.  And the folks who pursue these esoteric benefits are, I presume, experienced in the standards involved.  So, in the pursuit of understanding kata, what is the product?  If a person has no experience, how can they benefit? 

I'm not judging.  This just seems like a real disconnect to me.  Tai Chi, to me, seems reasonable and predictable.  The focus of the style (for many) has become something other than fighting prowess.  So, the style has evolved.  Folks who do tai chi don't generally claim to be learning to fight, and so everything is internally and externally consistent.  At this point, then, should someone allege that they CAN use their tai chi skills to fight, a reasonable person would be skeptical.

It's the same with some other styles, and in particular, when some individuals involved are admittedly inexperienced.  Are they experts in the form?  Maybe... probably.  Does that mean they are experts in how their efforts will translate to another context?  Errr.... I think it's reasonable to be skeptical.


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2022)

seasoned said:


> When we first learn a kata it would appear it is made up of, punch, block, kick, stance and a pattern of foot movement that is unique to each kata as in, turns, stepping in different directions and moving forward or back. As a new student this will suffice and lead into sparring and various drills simulating fighting experiences. The above is the basic structure of a mid 1950s Okinawan GoJu dojo.
> This is only the surface of this art...........if this is all you learned you could fair well with your everyday street fighter.
> What is yet to come as you approach black belt is the crux of your learning.  One small example is, you learn that all blocks are also strikes and all strikes and blocks lead into throws and takedowns....
> 
> Law enforcement and military begin their training on simulators



Well, i don't want to beat a dead horse.  I've commented on this a lot.  Suffice to say, LEO and military begin their training on simulators, but don't stay there.  Add to this all the stuff I've written on context, transfer of learning, etc.  Simply put, cops know what cops know based on what cops do.  They don't have the same experience as a bouncer, though there is a lot of overlap... and they don't know all of the same things that other folks know.  Pilots learn on simulators, but don't stay there.  Boxers learn to box in the gym, but don't stay there.  

A lot of martial artists start in the simulator and stay there.  Not all.  

So, in the context of this thread, is it possible for one of these martial artists to "understand kata"?



seasoned said:


> Traditional "old" kata are about fighting..
> Side note: Mid 50s dojo had no sparring gear at all......block or get hit.


Sounds fun.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> Well, i don't want to beat a dead horse.  I've commented on this a lot.  Suffice to say, LEO and military begin their training on simulators, but don't stay there.  Add to this all the stuff I've written on context, transfer of learning, etc.  Simply put, cops know what cops know based on what cops do.  They don't have the same experience as a bouncer, though there is a lot of overlap... and they don't know all of the same things that other folks know.  Pilots learn on simulators, but don't stay there.  Boxers learn to box in the gym, but don't stay there.
> 
> A lot of martial artists start in the simulator and stay there.  Not all.
> 
> ...


Rather then break up your post I'll summarize... Yes but far and few in between 
Without pinpointing or focusing on the negative, martial arts has become a business. A lot of the older kata meaning has been lost or obscure from sight for various reasons and saved for only the loyalist and trusted students. I belonged to one of these dojo and Sensei decided to close the doors because he didn't like the way martial arts was headed and simple because the day of the warrior had passed......Mind set, (stay in the fight and the will to survive) does not bode well in these more modern times.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> If kata can never be changed, and kata helps define a style, doesn't that doom the style to never being able to progress as things are understood better? Does a single movement change really make it no longer the same art?


Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> If there are few who understand them, that leads me to two questions:
> 
> Why aren't they advertising that knowedge, so others can find them to gain that understanding?
> How can those kata possibly be passed along with any efficacy by people who don't understand them?


1) I presume many do. I also presume many who haven't that knowledge say they do, and believe it to be true.

2) A scribe doesn't need to be able to read the text they are copying.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.


By using your approach, the number of form in a style may increase into a large number. 

IMO, if your form has duplicate combo "downward block, punch", to replace one combo with a new technique won't

- lost any old information of the form.
- increase the length of that form.
- increase the number of the forms.


----------



## Hyoho (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s an overstatement in the extreme. There are a lot of reasons one might change waza. Your statement implies waza is inherently perfect, otherwise we’d have to allow that sometimes the change is just an improvement.


As one highly acclaimed sword master told his students, "If you want to change a waza you will have to kill someone to test it".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.


This goes back to a prior question: why is it better to start over and create an entirely new kata, rather than make a change? Especially if only one change is intended- why ditch the rest?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 1) I presume many do. I also presume many who haven't that knowledge say they do, and believe it to be true.
> 
> 2) A scribe doesn't need to be able to read the text they are copying.


I don’t buy the premise that scribing is analogous to learning MA. If I replicate the basic look of a kata, but with improper mechanics, I’m not doing the kata properly. Those mechanics aren’t inherent in the movement, especially not as a beginner will typically reproduce it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 11, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> As one highly acclaimed sword master told his students, "If you want to change a waza you will have to kill someone to test it".


But that’s not true of most waza, is it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t buy the premise that scribing is analogous to learning MA. If I replicate the basic look of a kata, but with improper mechanics, I’m not doing the kata properly. Those mechanics aren’t inherent in the movement, especially not as a beginner will typically reproduce it.


Ok, you don't buy it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> This goes back to a prior question: why is it better to start over and create an entirely new kata, rather than make a change? Especially if only one change is intended- why ditch the rest?


I already explained why, so we're just playing games at this point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your approach, the number of form in a style may increase into a large number.
> 
> IMO, if your form has duplicate combo "downward block, punch", to replace one combo with a new technique won't
> 
> ...


As far as you know. Your explanations always assume you know all there is to know. You refuse to accept any other possibility.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 11, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As far as you know. Your explanations always assume you know all there is to know. You refuse to accept any other possibility.


We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.

This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.

If you just

- change one of the downward block into an upward block (or inside out block, or ...),
- change one of the straight punch into a hook punch (or uppercut, or ...),
- repeat "downward block, step in straight punch" 1 time instead of 8 times,

Will your new changed form be more valuable?

In your sentence, do you really need to repeat "I love you" 8 times?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 11, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.
> 
> This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.
> 
> ...


I cannot argue with a man who knows everything.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

That guy just did 8 times more exercise than most people in the world did today.

12 years ago.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I cannot argue with a man who knows everything.


There is no spoon.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Fair enough. It gets confusing when folks refer to other things, like tea ceremonies, calligraphy, etc. This makes sense, but in those efforts, in addition to the esoteric benefits of the activity, you also get a cup of tea, or a work of art. And the folks who pursue these esoteric benefits are, I presume, experienced in the standards involved. So, in the pursuit of understanding kata, what is the product? If a person has no experience, how can they benefit?


First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.

In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.

In terms of kata, to me it's a tool for this same exploration. I'm trying very hard to not to sound too abstract or esoteric haha, but fostering a deeper mind-body connection, being immersed deeper in and experiencing the art's principles, and connecting to something far larger than yourself. You don't really 'get' anything in the end. Even the tea doesn't last, nor will the calligraphy piece last forever, same as the kata which I guess is more like music how quickly it's over.

That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product. For me the kata must have a sense of realism and not just aesthetic (otherwise it would be a dance), but there is the opportunity to see it and train it as something deeper.

And yeah I find it more helpful to see kata not as a catalogue or alphabet, but as a particular tool for exploring the principles of the art.

Ah and the last question, I would say the person absolutely needs experience before benefitting. By that I mean practice under a teacher's guidance. If we're looking at practical application, when it works is the standard. In terms of a more 'do' perspective... no idea .


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.


Ah but see, that wasn't the form.

Starting is the ability to push out off the right foot to the left into the block. Not only that but the ability to stop your body under your control into the stance. Then driving forward with your bodyweight behind the punch, and in a big sense learning to triangulate and focus that forward intention of driven power without letting it disperse in other directions. The 180° turn into the block involves quite a bit of body control. Blocking off the opposite side/stance here too, along with the punch.

Another left into the middle line, three punches you're working to drive into and keeping them accurately placed one after the other. The 270° turn here is a whole other level of intricate body control. It's here the form repeats the previous, so it's only really repeating things twice under varying circumstances and differing levels of skill developed.

This is the issue with people looking at a form on the surface level, deciding they think it's too repetitive and thinking it should be changed. For a beginner's level form, there is a LOT to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I already explained why, so we're just playing games at this point.


Your responses seem circular to me, Bill. I'm trying to understand what it is I'm missing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.
> 
> This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.
> 
> ...


I see your point, and mostly agree. But there is another view on this: if each of the "downward block, step in punch" is sandwiched between a different pair of techniques, then perhaps the form is focused around how to set up and transition from that sequence. So changing one of them would lose one set-up and one recovery into another technique. Assuming, of course, that's how the kata is used.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.
> 
> In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.
> 
> ...


I do think this is part of the common disconnect between some folks here. For those with a "do" focus (whether or not the art ends with a "do"), the process and engagement are as important as the techniques - perhaps moreso. And many of the gains an individual focuses on are non combat-oriented, even if the training is. And there are as many different approaches to this as there are instructors teaching...and probably as many as there are students.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.
> 
> In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.
> 
> ...


That is deep. I like it. 



_Simon_ said:


> That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product.



The only thing I might change is to say 'by-product' instead of 'end-product'.

None-the-less, I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Hyoho (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> If the point is that there are SOME folks who shouldn't... sure.  In the hands of an incompetent, you may have significant harm done, such as with Potato Jesus.  I would guess that we all agree that some folks shouldn't mess around.
> 
> View attachment 27894
> 
> ...


It seems to me that some seem to have a rather vague idea of what some kata can be all about. If its a classical sword art there really is no messing around. For sure you can't change anything. The person performing uchidachi strikes/cuts an opponent. The other (shidachi) responds in avoidance/attack or avoids. For the purpose of training we can do kata. To break things down and mainly slow them down and avoid injury. For embu there is no more kata. Uchidachi will try and put Shidachi in hospital with cuts that stop a centimeter from the floor. No protective equipment is worn.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> It seems to me that some seem to have a rather vague idea of what some kata can be all about. If its a classical sword art there really is no messing around. For sure you can't change anything. The person performing uchidachi strikes/cuts an opponent. The other (shidachi) responds in avoidance/attack or avoids. For the purpose of training we can do kata. To break things down and mainly slow them down and avoid injury. For embu there is no more kata. Uchidachi will try and put Shidachi in hospital with cuts that stop a centimeter from the floor. No protective equipment is worn.


Isn't it implicit that folks who would modify a kata are competent?  And if we accept that as a given, can we not trust that they will only modify a kata in a way that is safe, if they choose to modify it at all?


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


Coming back to the OP to remind myself what the original questions are?


There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques?
Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution?
Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD?
We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? 
Reading through the thread, I think the only question that has been really answered is number two, and that answer seems to be, "Yes, sometimes... it depends."


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2022)

seasoned said:


> Rather then break up your post I'll summarize... Yes but far and few in between
> Without pinpointing or focusing on the negative, martial arts has become a business. A lot of the older kata meaning has been lost or obscure from sight for various reasons and saved for only the loyalist and trusted students. I belonged to one of these dojo and Sensei decided to close the doors because he didn't like the way martial arts was headed and simple because the day of the warrior had passed......Mind set, (stay in the fight and the will to survive) does not bode well in these more modern times.


I will likely fail but will try to add to yours and Steve's points. 
I feel comparing martial arts kata training to public servant training is not apples to apples. The intent (whether old or newer kata) is very different, although there are many complimentary, integral components. However, this is comparing an industry with no rules or regulations against an industry that is strictly regulated, measured, has heavy standards, and is very, very public.  
I do like the simulator analogy for explanation and agree that many, many folks training in the MA's never get out of the simulator. But I surely hope these are not the folks thinking they can change a form, at least on a conscious level. Done out of ignorance, by accident? Definitely, and done all the time. But this is not with the intent to make a permanent change. I hope. 

I feel I get what your Sensei saw when you say "he didn't like the way martial arts was headed". And I respect the willingness and awareness to walk away. It surely is a different season for all martial arts. By in large, everything has changed. 
I feel a lot of this began when large scale competition was introduced into the masses. To me, this differs greatly from one-on-one pressure testing and such. As soon as things became rules-bound everything changed. 
It is nearly impossible to translate the same intent your Sensei had/has to people who have zero perception of a kill or be killed environment. 
I do strongly feel the mindset you mentioned (warrior's spirit) is applicable for today but the perception of the instinct has broadened. The spirit can be processed and used in many, many different applications. "killing the deal", "killing it" in sports, "kill the messenger", etc... In a word, 'drive'.
It gets complicated for me. From my competition career and LEO days, I am certain I understand the mental process. And to me, a tangential overlap is my lifetime of hunting. Killing is not out of bounds to me.  

Fully understanding the intent and results is the most complicated part of the whole thing to me. 
As much as I try to explain the potential of some movements in our forms/hyungs/poomsae I also know there are many folks that will never get it, nor have any desire to get it. Another thing that gets harder and harder as an instructor.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.



I would agree about a TEACHER that doesn't understand that.  In this case, I said STUDENT.  But, I agree if that student was never corrected or learned then it would be lost to anyone who only studied with that person.

My instructor has a phrase along the lines that until you have sweated a gallon of sweat on a technique, then you don't even begin to understand it.  I think that many times the changes are done by people who haven't done their work into the technique and really owning it.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In cases where another teacher of the system has the missing knowledge, it might be better to wait and learn directly from that teacher rather than practicing an empty movement which you don't understand. Reason being - when a teacher and student don't understand a given movement then it can start to diverge from its functional form. If you go through multiple generations of instructors then this becomes more and more likely.
> 
> I'll give a specific example. @wab25 likes to cite the example of a movement in many karate forms which involves stepping forward with a "down block." He believes this movement is actually supposed to represent a certain type of takedown. I find this quite plausible. It certainly would be much more functional than the idea of stepping forward to block a kick which would have been out of range if you hadn't stepped forward.
> 
> ...


I was taught that all forms start with a defensive move, for a purpose. Since the movement you mentioned (low block) is the first move in many, many first forms of different styles, I wonder if the oral representation you mention has something to do with this. Versus your interpretation of a higher value yet offensive movement. 
Just a thought.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.
> 
> This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.
> 
> ...


Practice/training really is about repetition, though.  Repetition is how skills improve.  What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?

I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Well, i don't want to beat a dead horse. I've commented on this a lot. Suffice to say, LEO and military begin their training on simulators, but don't stay there. Add to this all the stuff I've written on context, transfer of learning, etc. Simply put, cops know what cops know based on what cops do. They don't have the same experience as a bouncer, though there is a lot of overlap... and they don't know all of the same things that other folks know. Pilots learn on simulators, but don't stay there. Boxers learn to box in the gym, but don't stay there.
> 
> A lot of martial artists start in the simulator and stay there. Not all.


I just wanted to say that for some arts we're never going to do better than simulator training, and that's okay.

I'm thinking specifically of sword arts and other obsolete historical deadly weapons. Swords aren't really a factor on the modern battlefield so you can't get that real life experience in the military. Dueling with real swords is generally illegal and by modern standards immoral, so you can't get real life sword fighting experience by going out and doing challenge matches. You can spar and compete under various rulesets with blunt swords and safety measure, but that will always be at best a flawed simulation of the real thing. Fortunately those of us who practice sword arts are unlikely to ever have to face a sword wielding opponent in a real life-or-death fight.

However the fact that our training is inherently a flawed simulation doesn't mean that it is just fantasy role playing. Getting back to your simulator analogy, imagine that you are on a plane flight and both the pilot and co-pilot keel over from simultaneous heart attacks. It turns out that one of the passengers is a pilot trainee who has memorized the operating manual for the plane you are on and has also logged hundreds of hours on a simulator, but has never yet actually flown the plane in real life. Who would you rather try landing the plane, the trainee or a kid who has spent a bunch of time piloting X-wings in a Star Wars video game? Obviously I would rather have an experienced pilot, but I think the guy who has studied the operating manual and spent time in the simulator has a decent chance of maybe getting us on the ground safely.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 12, 2022)

_Simon_ said:


> Ah but see, that wasn't the form.
> 
> Starting is the ability to push out off the right foot to the left into the block. Not only that but the ability to stop your body under your control into the stance. Then driving forward with your bodyweight behind the punch, and in a big sense learning to triangulate and focus that forward intention of driven power without letting it disperse in other directions. The 180° turn into the block involves quite a bit of body control. Blocking off the opposite side/stance here too, along with the punch.
> 
> ...


People forget that the stuff that happens between the down block and the punch and also the stuff between the punch and the next down block, are also techniques and skills and things worthy of study.


----------



## Ji Yuu (Jan 12, 2022)

Holmejr said:


> I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?


Kata is a training tool. You should reach a level to where you can adapt it. As long as you adapt it properly, with correct technique and theory, etc. If it makes sense with Bunkai, then it's probably ok.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I just wanted to say that for some arts we're never going to do better than simulator training, and that's okay.
> 
> I'm thinking specifically of sword arts and other obsolete historical deadly weapons. Swords aren't really a factor on the modern battlefield so you can't get that real life experience in the military. Dueling with real swords is generally illegal and by modern standards immoral, so you can't get real life sword fighting experience by going out and doing challenge matches. You can spar and compete under various rulesets with blunt swords and safety measure, but that will always be at best a flawed simulation of the real thing. Fortunately those of us who practice sword arts are unlikely to ever have to face a sword wielding opponent in a real life-or-death fight.


Sure, and there's nothing wrong with this, as long as folks don't get unrealistic expectations about their own skill level.  I would be very skeptical of any claims that modern folks are as skilled as people who did historically use the weapons.  And, conversely, if I had a practical need to use a sword and was looking at two instructors of similar backgrounds, where one has real world experience and the other doesn't, I know whom I would choose.



Tony Dismukes said:


> However the fact that our training is inherently a flawed simulation doesn't mean that it is just fantasy role playing. Getting back to your simulator analogy, imagine that you are on a plane flight and both the pilot and co-pilot keel over from simultaneous heart attacks. It turns out that one of the passengers is a pilot trainee who has memorized the operating manual for the plane you are on and has also logged hundreds of hours on a simulator, but has never yet actually flown the plane in real life. Who would you rather try landing the plane, the trainee or a kid who has spent a bunch of time piloting X-wings in a Star Wars video game? *Obviously I would rather have an experienced pilot, but I think the guy who has studied the operating manual and spent time in the simulator has a decent chance of maybe getting us on the ground safely.*


Maybe.  One never knows, and that's the point.  What I do know is that I would prefer, if given the choice, to not wait until there is a crisis to discover that my simulator training was flawed and that my instructor, despite his insistence to the contrary (and perhaps encyclopedic knowledge of the subject), really didn't know what he was talking about.

I honestly don't think my position on this is all that controversial, but I believe it causes some dissonance because folks are emotionally invested in not just the fun, positive, esoteric benefits of their art, but also that they are absolutely learning (and teaching) practical skills that will benefit them in a crisis.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Practice/training really is about repetition, though.  Repetition is how skills improve.  What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?
> 
> I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.


You are correct. That's the same form we teach students starting on Day 1, though the details of something are slightly different. For example, we would tell him to chamber that punch lower.

It is intended to teach the new student one stance, one block and one attack. Using both sides of the body. While moving in multiple directions. It repeats because repetition is one of the ways people learn things.
It is intentionally simple. Because we want the new student to be able to learn it quickly. 

In TKD, rank progression is typically linked to learning new forms (along with other requirements). In our system, that form is THE requirement for earning a dobak and white belt. They don't have to do it super well, just get through it (in front of the class, which makes it more difficult for a lot of students) without prompting.

So why would I want to start them off with a form that includes eight different stances, seventy three blocks and a hundred and forty seventeen attacks?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> And, conversely, if I had a practical need to use a sword and was looking at two instructors of similar backgrounds, where one has real world experience and the other doesn't, I know whom I would choose.


Me too. However in the case of sword arts

There aren't really any instructors in this day and age who have significant real world background. Maybe you can find someone who subdued a burglar with a bokken, but you aren't going to find much in the way of instructors who have fought duels with a real sword or fought on the battlefield with a real sword. Best you can hope for is to find a lineage where an instructor a few generations back did one of those things.
Fortunately, the odds of having a practical need to use a sword in the modern day are practically nil.
Essentially, we (sword art practitioners) are like aviation enthusiasts in an era where airplanes have all been banned due to the pollution they cause, studying the manuals and practicing in simulators just for the fun of it and to get an idea of what it must have been like for real pilots.



Steve said:


> Maybe. One never knows, and that's the point. What I do know is that I would prefer, if given the choice, to not wait until there is a crisis to discover that my simulator training was flawed and that my instructors, despite his insistence to the contrary, really didn't know what he was talking about.


Absolutely. If there's a choice, you want first hand experience or at least an immediate connection to someone who has first hand experience. But if there is no choice, then you have to do your best with what you can get.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Practice/training really is about repetition, though.  Repetition is how skills improve.  What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?
> 
> I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.



It's also a basic Shotokan Karate form.   Notice the skill difference, here.  Or lack thereof.

This guy's going to break his hands punching that way, imho.

Oh, kata!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's also a basic Shotokan Karate form.   Notice the skill difference, here.  Or lack thereof.
> 
> This guy's going to break his hands punching that way, imho.
> 
> Oh, kata!


That is closer to the way we teach it. What do you think is wrong with his punches?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> That is closer to the way we teach it. What do you think is wrong with his punches?


I won't speak to what Oily Dragon sees, but to me it looks like the gentleman is flexing his wrist slightly downwards at the punch's full extension. Assuming that's not some illusion caused by the camera angle, this can lead to the wrist buckling when the fist impacts a solid object with full power. It probably won't break his hands, but he might sprain a wrist.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> That is closer to the way we teach it. What do you think is wrong with his punches?


I prefer to show people than try to explain (I suck at it), but simply that is a bad angle to hit anything hard especially without a glove.  It's also low and targets the center of the chest.

This is a problem in a lot of martial arts, these low, centered punches that avoid the face entirely, unless your opponent is two feet shorter.

Notice the angle difference here, these punches are better supported.  This dude is aiming at his imaginary partner's jaw (and even he throw a few too low, but hey, that's kata for you.)


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I won't speak to what Oily Dragon sees, but to me it looks like the gentleman is flexing his wrist slightly downwards at the punch's full extension. Assuming that's not some illusion caused by the camera angle, this can lead to the wrist buckling when the fist impacts a solid object with full power. It probably won't break his hands, but he might sprain a wrist.


I think it is the camera angle. That punch is taught as being aimed at the nice, soft solar plexus, and keeping the bones aligned is stressed.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I prefer to show people than try to explain (I suck at it), but simply that is a bad angle to hit anything hard especially without a glove.  It's also low and targets the center of the chest.


It targets the solar plexus. Keeping the wrist and hand aligned is stressed. He's not perfect, but he's not going to hurt himself.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it is the camera angle. That punch is taught as being aimed at the nice, soft solar plexus, and keeping the bones aligned is stressed.


Could be.  Even so, it wouldn't be too hard to miss the solar plexus and hit the xyphoid or ribs bare handed.  His arm looks pretty developed so maybe he'll be fine.  But as a general rule?

I'm biased towards headhunting martial arts, but I see your point, some schools just teach different targets.  That's definitely something that changes in different katas in different schools.  Some schools are more brutal than others.  I know that's not supposed to be the TKD way.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Could be.  Even so, it wouldn't be too hard to miss the solar plexus and hit the xyphoid or ribs bare handed.  His arm looks pretty developed so maybe he'll be fine.  But as a general rule?


As a general rule, he can hit a hard target like that and he will still be just fine. 
My personal best is 20" of concrete with a strike like that. Last time we did a demo at one of the local Jr High schools, I did 16", ten times through the day. No injury.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> As a general rule, he can hit a hard target like that and he will still be just fine.
> My personal best is 20" of concrete with a strike like that. Last time we did a demo at one of the local Jr High schools, I did 16", ten times through the day. No injury.


You broke 20" of concrete striking horizontally at a 15 degree downangle?  

Or Dim Mak style like in your photo?


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Me too. However in the case of sword arts
> 
> There aren't really any instructors in this day and age who have significant real world background. Maybe you can find someone who subdued a burglar with a bokken, but you aren't going to find much in the way of instructors who have fought duels with a real sword or fought on the battlefield with a real sword. Best you can hope for is to find a lineage where an instructor a few generations back did one of those things.
> Fortunately, the odds of having a practical need to use a sword in the modern day are practically nil.
> Essentially, we (sword art practitioners) are like aviation enthusiasts in an era where airplanes have all been banned due to the pollution they cause, studying the manuals and practicing in simulators just for the fun of it and to get an idea of what it must have been like for real pilots.


Understood.  Once again, I don't think we disagree on this.  Relevant to this thread, the concern I have is, when we talk about martial arts and in particular styles where there is 100% reliance in simulation, the folks who train in these styles exhibit what I believe is an unearned degree of confidence in their own ability. 

Pilots learning to fly planes in simulators in an era where real planes have been banned...  I think should bake into their training a healthy respect for the very real possibility that they have it all wrong.  Or that they may not have it all wrong on a macro level, but that they individually are not as skilled as they believe.  Or, as you suggest, they disregard any concerns about whether they could pilot a real plane, because the entire exercise is academic, and so they focus on ancillary benefits of the activity.

So, again, trying to tie this back to the topic at hand, the stakes go up a little because folks are being told that they may, in fact, need to fly the plane at some point, and are assured that they will be well prepared if/when that time comes.  



Tony Dismukes said:


> Absolutely. If there's a choice, you want first hand experience or at least an immediate connection to someone who has first hand experience. But if there is no choice, then you have to do your best with what you can get.


yes, and when you do the best with what you can get, you really should be realistic about what you're actually getting.  Again, in the context of threads like this, I cringe when I read a post by folks who have proudly claimed they never fight, and have little or no experience in fighting, who are nevertheless very confident that what they learn and teach will be effective, for themselves and for their students.  

All that said, I find this topic interesting.  I know that some folks get defensive.  At the very least, I appreciate your comments, though this really seems more directly related to the discussion in the Dunning-Kruger thread.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> You broke 20" of concrete striking horizontally at a 15 degree downangle?
> 
> Or Dim Mak style like in your photo?


Pretty much irrelevant. Delivering a punch to the sternum with proper body mechanics is safe and effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Practice/training really is about repetition, though.  Repetition is how skills improve.  What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?
> 
> I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.


I just use that form as one example. I'm talking about MA in general and not just Karate, or TKD.

The Yang Taiji only has one 108 moves form. In that form, the following 8 moves combo has been repeated 8 times.

- Ward off.
- Pull back.
- Press forward.
- Push.
- Double pulling.
- Single whip.

Please tell me if you think those 8 redundancy is necessary? How about just to repeat it 6 times, 4 times, 2 times, or even just 1 time instead?

If I just replace one of those redundancy into something else (because I don't want to create another new Taiji form), the form will contain more information but won't lose any old information.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> All change is good sometimes.
> View attachment 27864


That’s still better efficacy than the flu vaccine in most years.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Pretty much irrelevant. Delivering a punch to the sternum with proper body mechanics is safe and effective.


A lot of TKD instructors break stuff for demos, it's kind of your calling card, so I was curious about what you meant and why you thought punching concrete was relevant.

If you're saying it's not, I agree.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 12, 2022)

I believe the form is designed for teaching and learning. It's not designed for training. Taking the form apart and repeat a combo sequence over and over should be the proper training.

If you use form to "record" information, you don't need to record the same information multiple times.

For example, I can repeat the following 3 moves combo

- hook punch.
- front kick.
- back fist.

20 times non-stop. My form doesn't need to record those 3 moves combo 20 times.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just use that form as one example. I'm talking about MA in general and not just Karate, or TKD.
> 
> The Yang Taiji only has one 108 moves form. In that form, the following 8 moves combo has been repeated 8 times.
> 
> ...


How many times did you practice single leg takedown, before you got good at it?  How many times do you continue to practice it, to maintain that skill?  Surely it is more than once.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just use that form as one example. I'm talking about MA in general and not just Karate, or TKD.
> 
> The Yang Taiji only has one 108 moves form. In that form, the following 8 moves combo has been repeated 8 times.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Those repetitions are there because the posture is not the form. The transitions are where the rubber meets the road. Anyone can learn the postures, but just moving from posture to posture does not equal Tai Chi Chuan. I’m of the opinion that how one gets to the posture is more important than the posture itself, and far more difficult to learn.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the form is designed for teaching and learning. It's not designed for training.


That is where we differ.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> How many times did you practice single leg takedown, before you got good at it?  How many times do you continue to practice it, to maintain that skill?  Surely it is more than once.


What's the difference between to record the same information

- 8 time in the form, and train the form 1 time,
- 1 time in the form, and train the form 8 times?


----------



## lklawson (Jan 12, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Me too. However in the case of sword arts
> 
> There aren't really any instructors in this day and age who have significant real world background. Maybe you can find someone who subdued a burglar with a bokken, but you aren't going to find much in the way of instructors who have fought duels with a real sword or fought on the battlefield with a real sword. Best you can hope for is to find a lineage where an instructor a few generations back did one of those things.
> Fortunately, the odds of having a practical need to use a sword in the modern day are practically nil.
> ...


I've been avoiding commenting in this thread mostly because I have a long-standing (and oft' stated) theory that if you ask 3 different instructors what the purpose of Kata is, you'll get 4 different answers (at least).

That said, sword fights actually do happen.  I used to believe that they were completely absent from the modern world but, well, they're not.  I will stipulated that they are comparatively small in the "violent encounters" list (which itself is small compared to any other list).  But they do happen, surprisingly more often then I thought.  Most seem to be with machete, which, frankly, is a sword (I have a buddy who practices Meyer's Dusak using d-guard machete).  A lot of them seem to happen in non-1st-World nations but there are a fair number that crop up in places like England or New York.

You remember this one, right?





A lot of them seem to have disappeared from yootoob but there are still many.















This is one of my favorites.  Notice the guy in the background who gets beaned with a rock?  He just goes down.  Hard.  I thought the best part was the defender, but no, it's the simple rock.





Anyway, the short version is, sword training is actually not as useless as I thought way back when.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the difference between to record the same information
> 
> - 8 time in the form, and train the form 1 time,
> - 1 time in the form, and train the form 8 times?


They both work.  I don’t object to either, nor do I say that one is preferred over the other.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> A lot of TKD instructors break stuff for demos, it's kind of your calling card, so I was curious about what you meant and why you thought punching concrete was relevant.
> 
> If you're saying it's not, I agree.


Because hitting something hard with power hurts if you do it wrong.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s still better efficacy than the flu vaccine in most years.


I've heard that with the mRNA vaccines, we may see that improving in future years.  In trials now, but looks like there's reason for optimism.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.
> 
> This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.
> 
> ...


I wanted to go back to this post again... This kata is a simple kata and was created by Funakoshi. 

When we first look at it... we see the same two techniques repeated a bunch of times. Then, we realize that the pattern breaks twice, when 3 punches are thrown in a row. Then at some point we realize that the footwork is different and changes, even though we are in the same stance the whole time. Then we realize there is stuff happening in between the punch, the block and the step.

We then learn that each technique can have multiple applications. The punch can be a punch, a push, an escape, an off balancing, a joint lock, a throw... As Tony pointed out, there are subtle differences (sometimes major differences) in how the body works to accomplish these different applications. So now, your first punch is a punch, the second a throw, the third a joint lock, the fourth an escape... There are a lot of combinations here, that you could come up with, doing the same techniques. This will unlock all kinds of things to work on with the footwork and the transitions.

We then realize that this is about body unification. How to move your body as a single unit. How to put your body behind your punch and your block. How to start and stop in control, how to turn with control. How to connect your foot to your hand.

Then we can start looking at the whole kata, instead of the individual parts. It shows how to create a pattern, and then break the pattern, how to set an expectation and break the expectation. It shows how to be aware of your surroundings. It talks about always covering up and returning to a guard position... return to the guard position before moving, before turning. It talks about entering... you enter when you strike and you also enter when you block... when you change direction, you do so by entering. It talks about clearing the defenses out of the way before you attack, clearing the way for your attack. It teaches you to think moves ahead... not just one move at a time... I need to throw my down block and punch in a way that I am ready to turn 180 degrees... meaning if I had an opponent on both sides, I need to take care of the first, before turning to the second... when turning to the second opponent, my entering in motion also creates more space between me and the first guy... Since I always have to guard my center right after the punch or the block, as I move to the next technique... it means that at the correct punching position or blocking position, there was an opening... so that you can study how you open yourself to attack....

Additionally, we can actually reference what Funakoshi said about this particular kata and what he hoped we would get out of it. From Karate-Do Kyohan, by Funakoshi: (KARATE-DO KYOHAN)


> TAIKYOKU (FIRST CAUSE)
> This is in fact three kata, numbered Shodan, Nidan, and Sandan. Since this form is the easiest of the kata to learn and consists of those blocks and attacks that are the most helpful in practicing basic techniques, it should be the form with which beginners start. This kata and the Tenno Kata to be described below are the product of my many years of research into the art of karate. If they are practiced regularly, they will result in an even development of the body and in a sound ability to bear the body correctly. Moreover, the student who has gained proficiency in basic techniques and understands the essence of the Taikyoku Kata will appreciate the real meaning of the maxim, In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack. It is for these reasons that I have given them the name Taikyoku.


The creator of the kata is expecting it to relate to and explain the karate precept: "In karate, there is no advantage in the first attack." I have not been able to fully get that far yet... I still have much to learn from this kata. The point here is that there is much more in the kata, than just random techniques, put into a catalog or dictionary. If I were to go about changing this kata, sure I could have it include and show all the things I explained above... however, I am not sure that I could have it fulfill Funakoshi's desire to have it explain the precept. I would probably miss a few other things as well. This is one of the more interesting kata, since we have the creators own words, describing his goals and intentions for the kata.

This is why I like to look at the history of an art... one reason is to see who changed what and why... And by who, what was their understanding of the kata, when they made the changes...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the difference between to record the same information
> 
> - 8 time in the form, and train the form 1 time,
> - 1 time in the form, and train the form 8 times?


Because, if you break up the form, then you end up not performing the transitions between the postures. This also means that you do not stay down on your legs for the same length of time, losing the excercise/exertion  benefit. In my opinion, this equates to seeking a shortcut. In my opinion, the seeking of shortcuts equate to a lack of patience which is part of the training.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> They both work.  I don’t object to either, nor do I say that one is preferred over the other.


Well you and I differ here. But that’s ok.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> I've heard that with the mRNA vaccines, we may see that improving in future years.  In trials now, but looks like there's reason for optimism.


I’m not against vaccines, quite the contrary. I am however disappointed by any product which works less than 60% of the time.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I've been avoiding commenting in this thread mostly because I have a long-standing (and oft' stated) theory that if you ask 3 different instructors what the purpose of Kata is, you'll get 4 different answers (at least).
> 
> That said, sword fights actually do happen.  I used to believe that they were completely absent from the modern world but, well, they're not.  I will stipulated that they are comparatively small in the "violent encounters" list (which itself is small compared to any other list).  But they do happen, surprisingly more often then I thought.  Most seem to be with machete, which, frankly, is a sword (I have a buddy who practices Meyer's Dusak using d-guard machete).  A lot of them seem to happen in non-1st-World nations but there are a fair number that crop up in places like England or New York.
> 
> ...


Wow! That is scary! One small error and life is different forever, or just over.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I’m not against vaccines, quite the contrary. I am however disappointed by any product which works less than 60% of the time.


Regarding flu vaccines (and vaccines in general), aren't they all very effective against the strains for which they are designed... and the progressively less effective the more disparate the strains? 

I recall with Covid, for example, the vaccines were all extremely effective against the early strains for which it was designed (mid to high 90's).  As time goes on, the virus is allowed to persist and new strains arise, the vaccines are less effective. 

So, I guess it's one of those things where it depends.  If the flu vaccines were very effective against one strain, but you get another strain, doesn't it seem reasonable you would be less well protected?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Regarding flu vaccines (and vaccines in general), aren't they all very effective against the strains for which they are designed... and the progressively less effective the more disparate the strains?
> 
> I recall with Covid, for example, the vaccines were all extremely effective against the early strains for which it was designed (mid to high 90's).  As time goes on, the virus is allowed to persist and new strains arise, the vaccines are less effective.
> 
> So, I guess it's one of those things where it depends.  If the flu vaccines were very effective against one strain, but you get another strain, doesn't it seem reasonable you would be less well protected?


Although I am in the medical profession, I’m not well educated on this subject. Perhaps someone else could speak to this?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Regarding flu vaccines (and vaccines in general), aren't they all very effective against the strains for which they are designed... and the progressively less effective the more disparate the strains?
> 
> I recall with Covid, for example, the vaccines were all extremely effective against the early strains for which it was designed (mid to high 90's).  As time goes on, the virus is allowed to persist and new strains arise, the vaccines are less effective.
> 
> So, I guess it's one of those things where it depends.  If the flu vaccines were very effective against one strain, but you get another strain, doesn't it seem reasonable you would be less well protected?


Essentially correct. There are four basic types of flu. A&B cause nasty epidemics. C does not. D really only affects cows. Those four types are defined by the proteins associated with them. 
Within each of those types there are a huge number of variants. The flu vaccine protects against A&B. The difficulty is predicting which subtypes to cover. Protecting against all would require a shot the size of a Buick. When the WHO predictions are spot on, the vaccine is typically 40-60% effective overall. Mostly because even when the predictions are correct, the flu virus mutates incredibly fast, and all of the less-common variants are still out there for you to catch.

The Covid vaccines were 90% effective against the original strains. FYI, a 1st generation vaccine is considered a great success if it is 80% effective. As new variants develop, they may be less (or more) controllable by the vaccines. And the vaccines will be modified as we learn more about the virus and the variants. When a new variant appears, the three big questions are:
1 - How contagious is it?
2 - How well does the current vaccine work against it?
3 - How severe are the symptoms it causes?

In a perfect world, the new variant would be less contagious, more vulnerable to the vaccines, and cause minor symptoms. 

The Omicron variant, which currently accounts for about 75% of the infections in the US, is more contagious and pretty good at getting past the vaccines. Currently, it looks like people who are up to date on vaccines and boosters are getting about 70% protection from infection, and about 88% protection against severe infection. Vaccinated without boosters is about 40% protection and 70% against severe infection. So that variant is worse on #1 and #2, but a win on #3. 

Staying on topic... I don't think you should change a kata based on your vaccine status.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Regarding flu vaccines (and vaccines in general), aren't they all very effective against the strains for which they are designed... and the progressively less effective the more disparate the strains?
> 
> I recall with Covid, for example, the vaccines were all extremely effective against the early strains for which it was designed (mid to high 90's).  As time goes on, the virus is allowed to persist and new strains arise, the vaccines are less effective.
> 
> So, I guess it's one of those things where it depends.  If the flu vaccines were very effective against one strain, but you get another strain, doesn't it seem reasonable you would be less well protec





Dirty Dog said:


> Essentially correct. There are four basic types of flu. A&B cause nasty epidemics. C does not. D really only affects cows. Those four types are defined by the proteins associated with them.
> Within each of those types there are a huge number of variants. The flu vaccine protects against A&B. The difficulty is predicting which subtypes to cover. Protecting against all would require a shot the size of a Buick. When the WHO predictions are spot on, the vaccine is typically 40-60% effective overall. Mostly because even when the predictions are correct, the flu virus mutates incredibly fast, and all of the less-common variants are still out there for you to catch.
> 
> The Covid vaccines were 90% effective against the original strains. FYI, a 1st generation vaccine is considered a great success if it is 80% effective. As new variants develop, they may be less (or more) controllable by the vaccines. And the vaccines will be modified as we learn more about the virus and the variants. When a new variant appears, the three big questions are:
> ...


Thank you! I was hoping you would speak to this. Much appreciated.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Practice/training really is about repetition, though.  Repetition is how skills improve.  What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?
> 
> I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.


The first basic form in TKD has 8 blocks and 12 punches.


----------



## Hyoho (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Isn't it implicit that folks who would modify a kata are competent?  And if we accept that as a given, can we not trust that they will only modify a kata in a way that is safe, if they choose to modify it at all?


If the kata was made up in the first place? Associations do it all the time. If its an original classical art? The headmaster has the intellectual copyright to do as he wishes. Hopefully he also has the common sense to realize that changes will be in the "grey area" of a waza. It's waza that be altered, not a kata (section to study in depth).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2022)

dvcochran said:


> The first basic form in TKD has 8 blocks and 12 punches.


Not all varieties of TKD use the same form sets, so depending on the branch, your statement may or may not be correct.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Not that the Korean point of view is wrong about anything...ever...

Can we switch gears to China for a moment?  Does everyone here see the skill difference now?  Or not?

I mean between the entry level TKD and Shotokan forms, and this one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I’m not against vaccines, quite the contrary. I am however disappointed by any product which works less than 60% of the time.


I’m good with anything that improves my chances of a favorable outcome by 25-40%. I prefer it more effective , but that’s not bad, as improvements go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2022)

Steve said:


> Regarding flu vaccines (and vaccines in general), aren't they all very effective against the strains for which they are designed... and the progressively less effective the more disparate the strains?
> 
> I recall with Covid, for example, the vaccines were all extremely effective against the early strains for which it was designed (mid to high 90's).  As time goes on, the virus is allowed to persist and new strains arise, the vaccines are less effective.
> 
> So, I guess it's one of those things where it depends.  If the flu vaccines were very effective against one strain, but you get another strain, doesn't it seem reasonable you would be less well protected?


Agreed. The low performance is in the ability to predict which strains will be prominent. At least, that’s my understanding.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not all varieties of TKD use the same form sets, so depending on the branch, your statement may or may not be correct.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not all varieties of TKD use the same form sets, so depending on the branch, your statement may or may not be correct.


Is that difference because someone changed the kata? Why are there branches? I know some of the kenpo/kempo history because of who my Sigung is but I am completely unfamiliar with tkd history.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I’m good with anything that improves my chances of a favorable outcome by 25-40%. I prefer it more effective , but that’s not bad, as improvements go.


Fair enough, I place my bets on the same numbers, unknown risks aside, nobody gets out of here alive.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Not that the Korean point of view is wrong about anything...ever...
> 
> Can we switch gears to China for a moment?  Does everyone here see the skill difference now?  Or not?
> 
> I mean between the entry level TKD and Shotokan forms, and this one.


That is no where near to an entry level form, you know this.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Not that the Korean point of view is wrong about anything...ever...
> 
> Can we switch gears to China for a moment?  Does everyone here see the skill difference now?  Or not?
> 
> I mean between the entry level TKD and Shotokan forms, and this one.


I have never understood the sound effect thing. If you mic him in those days, he really makes a sound, why fake something that’s real, although much quieter.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That is no where near to an entry level form, you know this.


It's kind of near.  It's just the second form in Hung Ga.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jan 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have never understood the sound effect thing. If you mic him in those days, he really makes a sound, why fake something that’s real, although much quieter.


The real sounds are much weirder.  There are whole systems of sounds in the forms, too.

They'd probably confuse the viewer, because the viewer probably doesn't know kung fu.  The foom foom sounds are there to please the audience, they always love a drum.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not all varieties of TKD use the same form sets, so depending on the branch, your statement may or may not be correct.


Correct. That is why I said 'basic'. Of course, the Taeguek form set is different. 
I cannot remember ever seeing Kicho Hyung il Bu (basic 1) done differently across all the TKD schools I have worked out at. I suspect TSD may do it differently.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 13, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's kind of near.  It's just the second form in Hung Ga.


How long until a person knows the movements of your first form and puts them in a pattern? How many forms do you have? 
I ask because I know the approach to training is quite different from CMA to KMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That is no where near to an entry level form, you know this.


ha ha ha.. I went back to see what you were talking about.  Jow Ga has a similar form.  This would be considered an advance form in Jow Ga.  Students won't even see this form until years later.  I've gone through about 7 forms in Jow Ga and I still wouldn't be in range of this one.  I would be about 4 form away.  It doesn't seem big but the more advance the form is the more difficult it becomes and the longer the form is.

Jow Ga always gets harder.  We just don't let the students know that lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's kind of near.  It's just the second form in Hung Ga.


lol I feel sorry for those students


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol I feel sorry for those students


I don’t know about that being the second form in Hung Ga.  I suspect it depends on the school.  I’m fairly certain it is not the second form Taught by Y. C. Wong in San Francisco, nor some teachers on the East Coast, based on what I was told by a friend who trained there. 

Even if it is a beginner level form, there is a big difference between a beginner doing it, and an advanced person doing it.  Presenting an example of an advanced person doing it as if this is typical of beginner level kung fu isn’t exactly being honest.

In my system, we’ve got a very long and complex form in our beginner level curriculum, and it is the second form taught.  However, if things are being done properly, you likely won’t learn it for a good couple of years into your training.  This isn’t stuff that people are thrown into from day one.  We’ve got four or five empty hand forms in our beginner level curriculum, and they are all rather lengthy.  You can spend several years before you learn this material and advance to intermediate level.  If you learn just our beginner level curriculum and nothing beyond that, you have a very full and worthwhile load of material to work on.  There is little real need to learn more of it.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 13, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Not that the Korean point of view is wrong about anything...ever...
> 
> Can we switch gears to China for a moment?  Does everyone here see the skill difference now?  Or not?
> 
> I mean between the entry level TKD and Shotokan forms, and this one.


Nice kata. I see GoJu Sanchin and Tensho interwoven within the techniques.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's kind of near.  It's just the second form in Hung Ga.


I am familiar with it. In your estimation, how long would a rank beginner need to train to get to where they are working this form, not just dancing through it? I know how long I think it would take, but I’m curious what you think. Do you teach CMA?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> The real sounds are much weirder.  There are whole systems of sounds in the forms, too.
> 
> They'd probably confuse the viewer, because the viewer probably doesn't know kung fu.  The foom foom sounds are there to please the audience, they always love a drum.


I am also familiar with the sound forms. I was talking about the sound of  cutting the air with the movements.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. I went back to see what you were talking about.  Jow Ga has a similar form.  This would be considered an advance form in Jow Ga.  Students won't even see this form until years later.  I've gone through about 7 forms in Jow Ga and I still wouldn't be in range of this one.  I would be about 4 form away.  It doesn't seem big but the more advance the form is the more difficult it becomes and the longer the form is.
> 
> Jow Ga always gets harder.  We just don't let the students know that lol.


Same here in Wing Woo Gar. It doesn’t get easier, it just becomes less of a struggle.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> In your estimation, how long would a rank beginner need to train to get to where they are working this form, not just dancing through it?


Very good question.  I like that you clarify that you aren't talking about "dancing through it?"  I've seen that done in some schools, where the goal is to learn as many forms as possible and as a result they understand very little.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Is that difference because someone changed the kata? Why are there branches? I know some of the kenpo/kempo history because of who my Sigung is but I am completely unfamiliar with tkd history.


Why are there branches of Karate? Why are there branches of CMA? Why are there branches of every. style. in. the. world?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Why are there branches of Karate? Why are there branches of CMA? Why are there branches of every. style. in. the. world?


I wasn’t being cheeky, I was asking about the history of these branch splits. Did those splits happen recently? Are they the result of some schism? Just curious.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I wasn’t being cheeky, I was asking about the history of these branch splits. Did those splits happen recently? Are they the result of some schism? Just curious.


TKD started out as a bunch of different schools with different styles, backgrounds, and influences. There have been several attempts to get them all to merge into one giant all-encompassing group. These has varying levels of success, but obviously never complete. Some groups join. Some do not. Some that joined stay. Some do not. I've seen numbers that show as many as 70 million people practice taekwondo. Good luck getting 70 people to totally agree on anything. 70,000,000? It is to laugh...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Very good question.  I like that you clarify that you aren't talking about "dancing through it?"  I've seen that done in some schools, where the goal is to learn as many forms as possible and as a result they understand very little.


I don’t teach any ”forms” to people until they have a solid foundation of fitness and basics. There is absolutely no point to it without that. It’s just a bunch of slop with no juice in it. Generally speaking, a solidly consistent student who trains several times a week will take two years to get to a place where they can learn the form correctly. Even then, until they have the choreography, they are dancing. I am a hard taskmaster like my teachers, but would never think to put a beginner to the task of learning the forms without the necessary conditioning. We have Tam Tui, Mok Gar, Hung Gar, Tong Long Pai, Yut ChI Kuen Chak, Di Yee Kuen, Chan Kuen, etc. These are are physically demanding, more so with cotton soled slippers on a slippery hard floor. That’s part of why very few students stay with it long enough to get to the forms. I don’t waste time on people who aren’t willing to do the hard work necessary to get there. There are no shortcuts.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> TKD started out as a bunch of different schools with different styles, backgrounds, and influences. There have been several attempts to get them all to merge into one giant all-encompassing group. These has varying levels of success, but obviously never complete. Some groups join. Some do not. Some that joined stay. Some do not. I've seen numbers that show as many as 70 million people practice taekwondo. Good luck getting 70 people to totally agree on anything. 70,000,000? It is to laugh...


Is there one you consider superior in training methodology or results?


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2022)

If it's not Kukkiwon TKD, it's not really TKD.  

...

...

I'll show myself out.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Is there one you consider superior in training methodology or results?


Mine, of course!
But honestly, no. I have rank in KKW, ITF and MDK styles. I offer rank in KKW and MDK.  I will teach the ITF Tul, if a student is interested, but do not offer rank in that style. The training methodology is grossly similar, and differences can probably be attributed to either the individual or the focus of the school/style. KKW, for example, is very very sport oriented. ITF less so. MDK not at all. But a MDK student can certainly fight in a tourney, and a KKW student can defend themselves. And a student of any could transfer to a school teaching another and feel at home fairly quickly.
That doesn't apply just to TKD either. I think it's fairly easy for someone from one hard style to switch to another hard style.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> If it's not Kukkiwon TKD, it's not really TKD.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


When you say silly things like this, you're supposed to call it WTF/WT TKD. Since that doesn't even exist.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mine, of course!
> But honestly, no. I have rank in KKW, ITF and MDK styles. I offer rank in KKW and MDK.  I will teach the ITF Tul, if a student is interested, but do not offer rank in that style. The training methodology is grossly similar, and differences can probably be attributed to either the individual or the focus of the school/style. KKW, for example, is very very sport oriented. ITF less so. MDK not at all. But a MDK student can certainly fight in a tourney, and a KKW student can defend themselves. And a student of any could transfer to a school teaching another and feel at home fairly quickly.
> That doesn't apply just to TKD either. I think it's fairly easy for someone from one hard style to switch to another hard style.


Thank you. That is quite informative.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Good luck getting 70 people to totally agree on anything.


ha ha ha.  I think of MartialTalk.com.  Mission impossible.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mine, of course!
> But honestly, no. I have rank in KKW, ITF and MDK styles. I offer rank in KKW and MDK.  I will teach the ITF Tul, if a student is interested, but do not offer rank in that style. The training methodology is grossly similar, and differences can probably be attributed to either the individual or the focus of the school/style. KKW, for example, is very very sport oriented. ITF less so. MDK not at all. But a MDK student can certainly fight in a tourney, and a KKW student can defend themselves. And a student of any could transfer to a school teaching another and feel at home fairly quickly.
> That doesn't apply just to TKD either. I think it's fairly easy for someone from one hard style to switch to another hard style.


I’m curious about the mdk guys going to tournament. Do you find that they have a harder time adapting to the specific rules? The reason I ask this is because you say they are not as sport oriented. I realize this might sound like a silly question but I am unfamiliar with TKD in general, and even more so with tournaments.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t teach any ”forms” to people until they have a solid foundation of fitness and basics. There is absolutely no point to it without that. It’s just a bunch of slop with no juice in it. Generally speaking, a solidly consistent student who trains several times a week will take two years to get to a place where they can learn the form correctly. Even then, until they have the choreography, they are dancing. I am a hard taskmaster like my teachers, but would never think to put a beginner to the task of learning the forms without the necessary conditioning. We have Tam Tui, Mok Gar, Hung Gar, Tong Long Pai, Yut ChI Kuen Chak, Di Yee Kuen, Chan Kuen, etc. These are are physically demanding, more so with cotton soled slippers on a slippery hard floor. That’s part of why very few students stay with it long enough to get to the forms. I don’t waste time on people who aren’t willing to do the hard work necessary to get there. There are no shortcuts.


So... it's probably sort of silly to try to compare a form meant to be taught after years of training to one that is meant to be taught to someone the day they walk through the door for the first time...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So... it's probably sort of silly to try to compare a form meant to be taught after years of training to one that is meant to be taught to someone the day they walk through the door for the first time...


That is true, and speaks to a very different approach to training altogether.  The material would be fundamentally different.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So... it's probably sort of silly to try to compare a form meant to be taught after years of training to one that is meant to be taught to someone the day they walk through the door for the first time...


Right, well like i said, I don’t teach them any forms until they have basics and conditioning. That takes quite a while and some folks just never get there. That is ok, some people come train just for excercise. I have no problem with that. I start them with no expectations. I don’t award rank, and I don’t teach children, so my pool of students tend to be college age athletic types.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I’m curious about the mdk guys going to tournament. Do you find that they have a harder time adapting to the specific rules? The reason I ask this is because you say they are not as sport oriented. I realize this might sound like a silly question but I am unfamiliar with TKD in general, and even more so with tournaments.


We don't really care about tournaments at all. We do take students to them from time to time. Because they want to go. But it's not at all a focus of the way we train.
Difficulties do arise, most commonly because we don't limit ourselves to WT-style tournies. And open tournies have widely varying rule sets. A couple examples.
We took a handful of students to an open tourney. I competed in the weapons sparring, using shinai. Their rules did not allow strikes to the head.
At another event, we were told that you would not score if you pulled your strikes. Hogu, headgear, hands and feet. One of the students I took was 13-14. She was a blue belt, so she'd been training with us a few years at that time. She was told the rule was contact, but I also specifically told her not to go 100% power. One sidekick to the abdomen and her opponent declined to finish the match. It wasn't a full power shot by any means, but apparently their definition of contact and ours differ.
And, frankly, reflexes can be a problem. At one of the few WT-style tournies we've been to, I had a 1st Geup student DQ'd. Because he simply couldn't stop punching people in their wide-open heads.
Those issues could all be resolved by spending time training under the rules in force. We do not. If students want to go compete, we discuss the rules as published for that event, but we don't spend any significant amount of time training with them.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So... it's probably sort of silly to try to compare a form meant to be taught after years of training to one that is meant to be taught to someone the day they walk through the door for the first time...


That was my point to oily dragon, that the tiger crane form is not something a new student could do correctly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t teach any ”forms” to people until they have a solid foundation of fitness and basics. There is absolutely no point to it without that. It’s just a bunch of slop with no juice in it. Generally speaking, a solidly consistent student who trains several times a week will take two years to get to a place where they can learn the form correctly. Even then, until they have the choreography, they are dancing. I am a hard taskmaster like my teachers, but would never think to put a beginner to the task of learning the forms without the necessary conditioning. We have Tam Tui, Mok Gar, Hung Gar, Tong Long Pai, Yut ChI Kuen Chak, Di Yee Kuen, Chan Kuen, etc. These are are physically demanding, more so with cotton soled slippers on a slippery hard floor. That’s part of why very few students stay with it long enough to get to the forms. I don’t waste time on people who aren’t willing to do the hard work necessary to get there. There are no shortcuts.


Chinese Martial Art movement requires a rewiring of the brain.  Most beginners that trained in our school was always surprised when they discovered that they had a hard time to get their bodies to do what they eyes are seeing.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> We don't really care about tournaments at all. We do take students to them from time to time. Because they want to go. But it's not at all a focus of the way we train.
> Difficulties do arise, most commonly because we don't limit ourselves to WT-style tournies. And open tournies have widely varying rule sets. A couple examples.
> We took a handful of students to an open tourney. I competed in the weapons sparring, using shinai. Their rules did not allow strikes to the head.
> At another event, we were told that you would not score if you pulled your strikes. Hogu, headgear, hands and feet. One of the students I took was 13-14. She was a blue belt, so she'd been training with us a few years at that time. She was told the rule was contact, but I also specifically told her not to go 100% power. One sidekick to the abdomen and her opponent declined to finish the match. It wasn't a full power shot by any means, but apparently their definition of contact and ours differ.
> ...


That’s kind of what I would expect. I don’t imagine most of my students would get through a tournament without a DQ except the most advanced ones because they have a lot of self control.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s kind of what I would expect. I don’t imagine most of my students would get through a tournament without a DQ except the most advanced ones because they have a lot of self control.


Well, if they'd just spar using our rules...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Chinese Martial Art movement requires a rewiring of the brain.  Most beginners that trained in our school was always surprised when they discovered that they had a hard time to get their bodies to do what they eyes are seeing.


The truest of statements! I remember it well From my beginnings. Definitely requires the empty cup. I find that women are easier to train at first. I also find that is easier to teach students that don’t have much martial arts experience.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> When you say silly things like this, you're supposed to call it WTF/WT TKD. Since that doesn't even exist.


When I see WTF TKD, I wonder why there isn't a question mark at the end.  Like... WTF, TKD?

And WT TKD makes me wonder what a Wing Tsun and TKD hybrid would even look like.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, if they'd just spar using our rules...


Yes indeed. Damn rules.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Chinese Martial Art movement requires a rewiring of the brain.  Most beginners that trained in our school was always surprised when they discovered that they had a hard time to get their bodies to do what they eyes are seeing.


And even harder to do without dancing through it. Adding power to the movement is another level completely.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> When I see WTF TKD, I wonder why there isn't a question mark at the end.  Like... WTF, TKD?
> 
> And WT TKD makes me wonder what a Wing Tsun and TKD hybrid would even look like.


Maybe you could do a video.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> When I see WTF TKD, I wonder why there isn't a question mark at the end.  Like... WTF, TKD?
> 
> And WT TKD makes me wonder what a Wing Tsun and TKD hybrid would even look like.


I believe that one of the stated reasons for changing WTF to WT was the slang.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Maybe you could do a video.


I could, but it would flatter neither myself nor any form of martial arts in any way.  Might go viral on TikTok, though, but not in the way I would like.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> I could, but it would flatter neither myself nor any form of martial arts in any way.  Might go viral on TikTok, though, but not in the way I would like.


I want to see the tornadoe kick done from the knock knee horse stance, followed by a chain punch on the landing! Tae Chun…Doh! Be careful, because Master Ken might send the Ameri-Do-Te guys after you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t teach any ”forms” to people until they have a solid foundation of fitness and basics.


I use the same approach too. I want my students to spend their time to compete in the ring (on the mat). One day when they are too old to compete, I'll teach them as many forms as they would like to know.

To my students, they need to go through the following stages:

1. partner drill - develop skill.
2. Sparring/wrestling - test skill.
3. Equipment training - enhance skill.
4. Form/drill training - polish skill.

IMO, without developing skill first, there is nothing to be polished (I don't teach dancers).

For example, after one can use hip throw on the mat, I will then teach him how to use equipment training to enhance it, and also how to use solo drill to polish it.

Student will do this on day one.






Students will do this years after.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> We don't really care about tournaments at all. We do take students to them from time to time. Because they want to go. But it's not at all a focus of the way we train.
> Difficulties do arise, most commonly because we don't limit ourselves to WT-style tournies. And open tournies have widely varying rule sets. A couple examples.
> We took a handful of students to an open tourney. I competed in the weapons sparring, using shinai. Their rules did not allow strikes to the head.
> At another event, we were told that you would not score if you pulled your strikes. Hogu, headgear, hands and feet. One of the students I took was 13-14. She was a blue belt, so she'd been training with us a few years at that time. She was told the rule was contact, but I also specifically told her not to go 100% power. One sidekick to the abdomen and her opponent declined to finish the match. It wasn't a full power shot by any means, but apparently their definition of contact and ours differ.
> ...


I heard similar results from the Shorin-ryu instructor who owned the school I used to teach at. They never trained for competition, but some folks (including her, back in the day) did compete, and generally did pretty well. But there were issues like the ones you refer to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Chinese Martial Art movement requires a rewiring of the brain.  Most beginners that trained in our school was always surprised when they discovered that they had a hard time to get their bodies to do what they eyes are seeing.


I know nothing of the movement you're talking about, but I've seen a similar issue with movement in NGA. While it comes to feel "natural", it's not movement anyone I've ever seen developed naturally. And some of the movements that look simple just aren't for many folks, especially adults over the age of 30.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I know nothing of the movement you're talking about, but I've seen a similar issue with movement in NGA. While it comes to feel "natural", it's not movement anyone I've ever seen developed naturally. And some of the movements that look simple just aren't for many folks, especially adults over the age of 30.


It almost never happens,(it’s january) but last Tuesday I had several brand new people show up to class. Pairing them with experienced students to mirror moving the horse stance, I was reminded of just how difficult the most basic movements are, even for athletic people. This is without any punches etc. Honestly, just getting them to form and hold a proper fist can be challenging. I often struggle with giving them too much vs. not enough to work on. Teaching has been an entirely new set of dynamics to adapt to.  I find that I enjoy digging deep into the foundations of movement, and sometimes a brand new student can inadvertently show me a new perspective. I believe that they have given me a much better understanding of my own basics because i must slow down, be sure of my words and break each part down into digestible bites. I don’t believe that I am truly skilled enough to be teaching but at some point necessity forced me into it. I am grateful for the people that allow me to teach.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It almost never happens,(it’s january) but last Tuesday I had several brand new people show up to class. Pairing them with experienced students to mirror moving the horse stance, I was reminded of just how difficult the most basic movements are, even for athletic people. This is without any punches etc. Honestly, just getting them to form and hold a proper fist can be challenging. I often struggle with giving them too much vs. not enough to work on. Teaching has been an entirely new set of dynamics to adapt to.  I find that I enjoy digging deep into the foundations of movement, and sometimes a brand new student can inadvertently show me a new perspective. I believe that they have given me a much better understanding of my own basics because i must slow down, be sure of my words and break each part down into digestible bites. I don’t believe that I am truly skilled enough to be teaching but at some point necessity forced me into it. I am grateful for the people that allow me to teach.


I know that game well.  We have a set of fundamentals and foundational exercises that most people simply find bizarre.  Getting people to do them, AND understand what skills they are building, can be a challenge.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I know that game well.  We have a set of fundamentals and foundational exercises that most people simply find bizarre.  Getting people to do them, AND understand what skills they are building, can be a challenge.


It’s rare to find others with that same experience. Thank you. 7 years of teaching feels like i started yesterday. 25 years of Wing Woo Gar and I’m just starting to get It. Patience, Courage, Virtuous Harmony, Resolution of Conflict. These are the 4 Virtues that I am trying to practice inside and outside of the gym. It makes the forms seem so insignificant to the big picture. I’m waxing philosophical today so I better go get ready to teach.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 13, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I know nothing of the movement you're talking about, but I've seen a similar issue with movement in NGA. While it comes to feel "natural", it's not movement anyone I've ever seen developed naturally. And some of the movements that look simple just aren't for many folks, especially adults over the age of 30.


I’m betting you DO know something of the movement. All roads leading to Rome and what not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It’s rare to find others with that same experience. Thank you. 7 years of teaching feels like i started yesterday. 25 years of Wing Woo Gar and I’m just starting to get It. Patience, Courage, Virtuous Harmony, Resolution of Conflict. These are the 4 Virtues that I am trying to practice inside and outside of the gym. It makes the forms seem so insignificant to the big picture. I’m waxing philosophical today so I better go get ready to teach.


Well, learning martial arts is more than just copying movement.  There is a lot going on that makes that movement effective, and that is what takes time and work to understand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 13, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> They never trained for competition,


The American Combat Shuai Chuao Association (ACSCA) has requirement to all members.

- compete in tournament.
- pass knowledge to the next generation.

In ACSCA. one can only obtains his 2nd degree BB through good tournament record. That include female students too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 13, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> moving the horse stance,


It's so important for beginners to learn how to transfer from a horse stance into a bow-arrow stance.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 15, 2022)

Kata,... after a good nights sleep the best definition that everyone can grasp, in my opinion would be, "road/google map, taking a trip". If it's to a destination you've never traveled to before, the first thing you do is find the standard route, follow the directions, and enjoy.

After visiting that awesome place and enjoying many great times there,  you may get a spark of adventure in you and decide to travel a different route. Maybe through the mountains, along the seashore or through the desert.

The destination is the same but the scenery is different and exciting. But, you may find that because each new route does not appeal to everyone, that you always have the option to "change up". Variety after all is the spice of life.

The moral to my story is, life is made up of standards, but not boring enough that you can't step out and explore options and fully enjoy everything life has to offer.  

Because life has standards it is a starting point a beginning if you will, a comfort zone a teaching platform for future travelers.

Kata, is our standard and it has been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years. Keep the roadmap of kata in place and enjoy everything the art you choose has to offer.

Kata.....


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 20, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> If kata can never be changed, and kata helps define a style, doesn't that doom the style to never being able to progress as things are understood better?


Most all kata have been changed as they have been taught by one master to another (future) master, as their great depth of understanding the moves allows them to do so intelligently.  To illustrate the dangers of changing a kata without understanding it, take the following two quotes in the context of kata:


Oily Dragon said:


> I prefer to show people than try to explain (I suck at it), but simply that is a bad angle to hit anything hard especially without a glove. It's also low and targets the center of the chest.
> 
> This is a problem in a lot of martial arts, these low, centered punches that avoid the face entirely, unless your opponent is two feet shorter.





Oily Dragon said:


> I'm biased towards headhunting martial arts, but I see your point, some schools just teach different targets.


There are numerous mid level punches (and other strikes) in many of my katas, and very few head strikes (or so it seems to the uninformed).

Some may think it better to change the target to the head.  But if they do, they will miss the head!  You see, even though the strikes are aimed at mid level, the target IS the head.  When one looks at the moves before the mid level strike, they are often a kick to the knee or groin, or there is a grab and pull downward.  These cause the opponent's head to come down, right into the mid level strike.

In my experience, once a form is understood, most everything makes sense.  In addition, many of the moves can be adapted to take into account a number of possibilities.  By changing a technique, you will likely lose its ability to adapt to the variables one finds in a fight.

It is not necessary to raise your punch to the opponent's head - lower his head to your punch.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 20, 2022)

wab25 said:


> I wanted to go back to this post again... This kata is a simple kata and was created by Funakoshi.
> 
> When we first look at it... we see the same two techniques repeated a bunch of times. Then, we realize that the pattern breaks twice, when 3 punches are thrown in a row. Then at some point we realize that the footwork is different and changes, even though we are in the same stance the whole time. Then we realize there is stuff happening in between the punch, the block and the step.
> 
> ...


Wow!  A kata is more than just a simple collection of blocks, kicks and punches?  Next, you'll be telling me that Bach's symphonies are more than just a bunch of random sounds being played by folks in formal attire.  Who knew?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Wow!  A kata is more than just a simple collection of blocks, kicks and punches?  Next, you'll be telling me that Bach's symphonies are more than just a bunch of random sounds being played by folks in formal attire.  Who knew?


In some cases, kata isn’t substantially more than that. We need to remember this is the General MA forum.


----------

