are we allowed to adjust material?

[KempoGuy06]

I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility.

I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.

Well another one of our classmates overhead the conversation and said that I should not change, that i have to keep working at it until I do it the way i was taught. I explained to him that it was nearly impossible and mildly painful to do it the way i was taught, so i changed it slightly so that i would be able perform the technique as best to my ability.

I was wondering what you all think. Am i right? Am i allowed to alter things to suit me? Or is the other guy right? Should i continue to practice at it until i get it down? what if i never do? do i just drop it? Im in a situation where i test for ranks, so does that mean i never move on until i get this down? (thats an extreme hypothetical but all the same it works for the thread)

Im curious as to what you have to say

B

 

[Dirty Dog]

You should know how things are "properly" done, even if for some reason you're physically incapable of doing them that way. And you should strive to overcome your limits so as to be able to perform them properly. But ultimately, modifications are sometimes necessary. As an example, any time I am in a backstance with the left foot forward, I will not have my head and shoulders exactly as is proper. Why? Because I don't have an eye on that side of my face, and in a proper stance, I cannot see the target. When I teach, however, I make sure to demonstrate ther stance properly, and make sure that people are not copying me (unless, of course, they're also blind on that side...). Do I lose points when I'm grading or competing? Sure. But that doesn't change the realities of the situation.

 

[KempoGuy06]

You should know how things are "properly" done, even if for some reason you're physically incapable of doing them that way. And you should strive to overcome your limits so as to be able to perform them properly. But ultimately, modifications are sometimes necessary. As an example, any time I am in a backstance with the left foot forward, I will not have my head and shoulders exactly as is proper. Why? Because I don't have an eye on that side of my face, and in a proper stance, I cannot see the target. When I teach, however, I make sure to demonstrate ther stance properly, and make sure that people are not copying me (unless, of course, they're also blind on that side...). Do I lose points when I'm grading or competing? Sure. But that doesn't change the realities of the situation.

Thanks!

I strive to do it properly like you said but my problem is when im inclose with someone and technique calls for a kicks. At 6'3" 245lbs that is demanding a lot from me. the best i could manage was a shot to the knees (which is effective none the less) but i want to be able to hit the proper target.

What i did was adjust my stance at the beginning and then add a step at the end so that i would have more room to kick the proper target at the end of the technique. nothing major and as far as believe my instructor is concerned he doesnt have a problem (i have not directly asked him about this but i have about other material and he says its fine as long as i know the proper way so that i can teach it to the lower ranks)

B

 

[MJS]

I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility.

I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.

Well another one of our classmates overhead the conversation and said that I should not change, that i have to keep working at it until I do it the way i was taught. I explained to him that it was nearly impossible and mildly painful to do it the way i was taught, so i changed it slightly so that i would be able perform the technique as best to my ability.

I was wondering what you all think. Am i right? Am i allowed to alter things to suit me? Or is the other guy right? Should i continue to practice at it until i get it down? what if i never do? do i just drop it? Im in a situation where i test for ranks, so does that mean i never move on until i get this down? (thats an extreme hypothetical but all the same it works for the thread)

Im curious as to what you have to say

B

I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed. What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently. What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person. So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me. I then make adjustments accordingly. I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes. You're supposed to do this."

So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes. Can't reach their face? Thats ok, just move the target. ie: hit them in the chest.

 

[KempoGuy06]

I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed. What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently. What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person. So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me. I then make adjustments accordingly. I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes. You're supposed to do this."

So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes. Can't reach their face? Thats ok, just move the target. ie: hit them in the chest.

I like this

Where does this mentality come from?

(Interesting question right here) do you find it more common in men or woman? what about kids vs adults?

At what point do you see this start to diminish? or do you know higher ranks that are sticklers about this?

B

 

[punisher73]

Things are set in place for a reason to instruct a specific lesson(s) and/or concepts. That being said, if we have a limited physical ability that prevents us from doing it that way, we should talk to our instructor and have them give us an alternative that still will contain those things.

Beginners many times change things due to preference and lose lessons in their art that they don't even realize. It is like doing away with a volume in a set of encyclopedias, and not knowing what was in there because it is gone.

 

[MJS]

I like this

Thanks.

Where does this mentality come from?

Not a clue..lol. I'd say from people who've been conditioned that change is a bad thing. If you can't make it work as written, then you're doing it wrong. Again, I'm not saying, to totally change the tech. I mean, if you're doing Lone Kimono, don't say, "I dont like the idea of stepping back and striking the arm, so I'm going to eliminate that part and add something else in." No, I'm saying, "Oh, when you go to strike down on his arm, you're not getting the desired effect because he's stronger and taller than you? Ok, no problem. Here, kick him in the balls first." Or something of that nature...LOL.

(Interesting question right here) do you find it more common in men or woman? what about kids vs adults?

Moreso men and women vs. kids.

At what point do you see this start to diminish? or do you know higher ranks that are sticklers about this?

B

Some that I've trained with are sticklers. IMO, those people are sticklers because they don't put themselves into a position where change may need to happen. When does it diminish? When people realize that they don't need to or shouldn't be so bound by the techs.

 

[Flying Crane]

In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".

If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that. Assuming the instruction you are receiving is of high quality, then you are learning a specific way to do these things, based on certain principles. When practicing and drilling, you should always adhere to those principles because that reinforces your execution. Also, you need to understand that sometimes how things are drilled is not how you would actually use them in a real fight. But drilling them in a certain way develops a foundational skill that will be brought into play every time you deliver the fundamental skills, even if the delivery is different from how it is drilled.

Now, if we are talking about the scripted Self Defense Scenario techniques that are pretty typical and common among many of the Hawaiian/Chow/Parker derived kenpo branches, then I would say there is more room for adjustments. Personally, I have some strong reservations about this approach to structuring a curriculum, I honestly do not feel it's the best approach to training, but that is my opinion and many people feel it works quite well. I do not believe that all of these kinds of SD techs were well designed to begin with, some are simply bad ideas from the ground up. I think it just opens the door to making a lot of changes, and as long as the fundamental skills are adhered to and the foundational principles are kept in tact, then altering the SD techs probably doesn't matter so much, as long as there is a good reason for doing so and the result is something that actually makes sense.

If the quality of instruction you are receiving is not particularly high, then all of these issues may be simply jumbled and making changes isn't going to help you. If this is the case, then you simply need a better instructor.

Everybody believes that the instruction they are receiving is high quality. Let's be honest: if you did not believe so, you would not continue to get that instruction. So determining what is high quality and what is not, can be a tough call for someone to make. Everyone makes a judgement based on their personal experiences.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that.

Even that depends. Some of what I've altered to suit my monocular vision is pretty basic. Including proper stances. The changes were discussed with my Master, and he approves.

 

[Flying Crane]

Even that depends. Some of what I've altered to suit my monocular vision is pretty basic. Including proper stances. The changes were discussed with my Master, and he approves.

OK, well I suppose there are always exceptions. But assuming the quality of the instruction is high and accurate, any changes made to this kind of thing should be done very carefully, and not done on a whim.

 

[jks9199]

I'm often confused, very confused, when I hear people say that things shouldn't have to be changed. What people tend to forget, is that everyone is built differently. What I can do, will differ from a smaller person, and it'll differ from a larger person. So, that said, what I do is: I teach the tech as it was taught to me. I then make adjustments accordingly. I've had shorter females working with taller males, and say, "I can't reach his face with this shot." So, when I'd show them what to do, they'd be so hell bent on no changes, they'd say, "Yeah, but thats not the way the tech goes. You're supposed to do this."

So yes, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with slight changes. Can't reach their face? Thats ok, just move the target. ie: hit them in the chest.

I'd agree.

There're things you shouldn't change; they're the key elements that make technique or sequence work. But beyond that? Adapt to the individual. I've got a guy in my class who was badly injured years ago, and lost most use of an arm. He knows the textbook way to do things, but obviously, can't. EVERYTHING he does has been adapted, adjusted, and tweaked. But if it maintains the key principles -- it's still OK.

The other thing is that, in reality, nothing works exactly the same when it's really being used. A punch that the script says goes to the head, they guy may turn a little away, and suddenly, there's no head to hit. Script may say a shot to the groin makes the guy bend down into an uppercut... but you just kicked the guy with brass balls who doesn't even flinch, so now you either whiff completely with that uppercut, or modify it to extend out into a different punch. And so on... So it never hurts to practice some variants on the scripts, too.

 

[jks9199]

If you can't make it work as written, then you're doing it wrong. Again, I'm not saying, to totally change the tech. I mean, if you're doing Lone Kimono, don't say, "I dont like the idea of stepping back and striking the arm, so I'm going to eliminate that part and add something else in." No, I'm saying, "Oh, when you go to strike down on his arm, you're not getting the desired effect because he's stronger and taller than you? Ok, no problem. Here, kick him in the balls first." Or something of that nature...LOL.

This reminds of the discussion with Ras & Doc not too long ago.

You have to learn the base technique, as is. You have to understand it. Once you understand the principles that make it work -- you can change it. That doesn't mean you can't make minor changes earlier, like hitting a chest instead of a face that you can't reach. But before making significant alterations, understand the technique. Too many people shortcut the process. There is a point of "if you can't make it work, you must be doing it wrong." But you also want to ask if it's the right technique for the situation, among other things. And there's a point when you can and probably should make some changes.

 

[Brian King]

A man was watching his wife prepare the family dinner and marveling at her well practiced efficiency. The way she moved about the kitchen and gathered the various ingredients was almost without thought yet had the efficiency of well thought out processes and practices. As she gathered the ham and cut about an inch of each end of the ham he asked why she did this. Her reply “my mother did this with every ham” didn’t really satisfy his curiosity but fortunately the parents were coming over that night for supper and he could ask his mother-in-law why cut an inch off both ends of the ham. So, during the supper he brought up the question. He asked the question, “why cut an inch off both ends of the ham?” To which his mother-in-law thought about it for a moment, then said. “Honey, the dish I cook the ham in was a nine inch dish and the hams were always just a bit too large for the dish that I used.”

If a person is doing a very traditional martial art, some of the practices might be armor based, or weapon based, that feel weird or do not make much sense doing them today unarmored. Yet, for many of these traditional arts, the practice is not supposed to change but the practitioner is supposed to change. Before a person makes changes they should understand the why of the method. What are the purposes and the reasons something is done. Only after that is understood depending on the art/style should changes be considered.

For arts other than the very traditional keeping the methods alive for centuries ones, I think that making changes is ok for the individual practitioner as long as they *understand the technique(s) and that when they start teaching they first teach the non-modified technique rather than their modifications. If someone teaches their modifications rather than the original way, they are then creating a new style which might or might not be ok but regardless should be done or avoided on purpose.

*By understand, I mean that they should know the strengths and weaknesses of both the non-modified and the modified techniques and should have thoroughly and severely tested the modifications for effectiveness, efficiency, and physical biomechanical safety.

FWIW - I do not practice kenpo/kempo so anyone reading my advice and/or opinions should bear that in mind.

Warmest Regards
Brian King

 

[Flying Crane]

A man was watching his wife prepare the family dinner and marveling at her well practiced efficiency. The way she moved about the kitchen and gathered the various ingredients was almost without thought yet had the efficiency of well thought out processes and practices. As she gathered the ham and cut about an inch of each end of the ham he asked why she did this. Her reply “my mother did this with every ham” didn’t really satisfy his curiosity but fortunately the parents were coming over that night for supper and he could ask his mother-in-law why cut an inch off both ends of the ham. So, during the supper he brought up the question. He asked the question, “why cut an inch off both ends of the ham?” To which his mother-in-law thought about it for a moment, then said. “Honey, the dish I cook the ham in was a nine inch dish and the hams were always just a bit too large for the dish that I used.”

I've heard this story before. I understand the spirit and the message behind it, but I think in many cases it misses the point. It implies that traditional methods are rigid, unbending, unchanging, outdated and not useful. That may be true in some cases but I think more often than not, it is simply not true. Rather it reflects a lack of understanding of what is really happening, in the traditional methods.

I don't know what things are like in the traditional Japanese or Okinawan or other methods, but I train a very traditional Chinese method. I can say that in my experience, the traditional methods have very specific ways of doing things, and it has nothing to do with being outdated or "cultural wrappings" or preserving an old method for posterity. Those who believe it does, simply do not understand the method and what is being trained and accomplished with those methods, and they do not understand that the traditional methods are not opposed to being changed when it is appropriate. My sifu does that all the time, and he explains why.

 

[K-man]

In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".

Not fair! That's my comment and I have copyright!

But to be serious, that is true. When we talk of basics, have the basics changed? I will give as an example differences between Japanese Goju karate as in Goju Kai and Okinawan Goju Ryu as taught at the Jundokan. Both styles originated from the teaching of Chogen Miyagi Sensei. The Japanese system is highly regulated while the Okinawan system is much more relaxed. So if we look at the stances, for example Shiko dachi (what a lot of people call 'horse stance' but it isn't) where the feet are roughly two shoulder widths apart, the feet are pointing out at a 45* angle and the knees are pushed out, in some instances so much that the direction of the knees is almost 180*. The body is lowered so the thighs are, in the extreme, parallel to the floor.

(Sorry the picture didn't load. This was an extreme low stance.)

Now I couldn't achieve that stance when I was 30 years younger than I am now and I was always being told my stance wasn't correct. Basically from day one my stance was as low as it was comfortable for me but technically wrong.

Then I changed to Okinawan Goju. Extreme stance is regarded there as not correct because you are limited in your ability to move quickly.

(This picture didn't load either. It was a more relaxed, higher stance.)

All of a sudden my stance is perfect. Even something as basic as a stance can be viewed differently within the same style so which s right? Answer, it depends. If you are in a kata competition, the extreme stance might get you a better score. If you are using the stance the way it was intended, for self defence, then the second is correct. In some ways you could think of the extreme form as kihon (although I would argue against that proposition) and the higher, more relaxed, form as advance technique. In reality it has to come down to what you can physically do.

A second example is a jump kick in Sanseru kata. Some older practitioners (and some younger ones too) can't physically perform that kick. In Goju Kai, that meant the kata was not being done correctly. In Okinawan Goju, the jump kick is not in the kata. There are two front kicks instead. Which kata is correct? Same style, same roots, yet differences everywhere.

Whether realistically you can vary what is being taught in your dojo depends on how far up the tree you can access. My attitude has totally changed. If one of my guys modifies something slightly to make it work for him, most times I would say go for it. Whenever I have asked those above me a similar question, that is the answer I have been given. :asian:

 

[jks9199]

I've heard this story before. I understand the spirit and the message behind it, but I think in many cases it misses the point. It implies that traditional methods are rigid, unbending, unchanging, outdated and not useful. That may be true in some cases but I think more often than not, it is simply not true. Rather it reflects a lack of understanding of what is really happening, in the traditional methods.

I don't know what things are like in the traditional Japanese or Okinawan or other methods, but I train a very traditional Chinese method. I can say that in my experience, the traditional methods have very specific ways of doing things, and it has nothing to do with being outdated or "cultural wrappings" or preserving an old method for posterity. Those who believe it does, simply do not understand the method and what is being trained and accomplished with those methods, and they do not understand that the traditional methods are not opposed to being changed when it is appropriate. My sifu does that all the time, and he explains why.

There's also a story about a kata which included 3 steps backwards unexpectedly at one point. Students looked into it, invented all sorts of explanations, like hopping over the bodies of the vanquished foes... Eventually, someone got a chance to ask one of the earliest members. The "real" explanation? "The dojo we trained in back then was too short; if you didn't take those three steps back, you'd run into the wall on the next sequence."

There's certainly a place for doing things for tradition's sake. But know why you're doing them -- both if you're going to change them, and if you're going to preserve them.

In this particular case -- the OP says that, without making some changes, he simply can't kick. Due to his size, he's too close to his opponent. Hey; don't kick if you're not at kicking range! But know why smaller people are doing a kick there, too.

 

[Buka]

I got in a discussion a couple weeks back with a classmate about some of out techniques. We were discussing how they could be adapted to this situation or that situation when we hit on a particular technique that i have difficulty executing as instructed due to my size and lack of flexibility.

I told my friend that i had changed it a little to better suit my size and flexibility. He liked it so much that he know does it because it feel better to him.

Well another one of our classmates overhead the conversation and said that I should not change, that i have to keep working at it until I do it the way i was taught. I explained to him that it was nearly impossible and mildly painful to do it the way i was taught, so i changed it slightly so that i would be able perform the technique as best to my ability.

I was wondering what you all think. Am i right? Am i allowed to alter things to suit me? Or is the other guy right? Should i continue to practice at it until i get it down? what if i never do? do i just drop it? Im in a situation where i test for ranks, so does that mean i never move on until i get this down? (thats an extreme hypothetical but all the same it works for the thread)

Im curious as to what you have to say

B

The word Sensei means "born before" or "one who has lived before". Both meanings refer to wisdom and experience, usually through age. The implication is that "Sensei" has lived this, it is not a question to him.

Simpler translation - Ask the boss.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's also a story about a kata which included 3 steps backwards unexpectedly at one point. Students looked into it, invented all sorts of explanations, like hopping over the bodies of the vanquished foes... Eventually, someone got a chance to ask one of the earliest members. The "real" explanation? "The dojo we trained in back then was too short; if you didn't take those three steps back, you'd run into the wall on the next sequence."

There's certainly a place for doing things for tradition's sake. But know why you're doing them -- both if you're going to change them, and if you're going to preserve them.

In this particular case -- the OP says that, without making some changes, he simply can't kick. Due to his size, he's too close to his opponent. Hey; don't kick if you're not at kicking range! But know why smaller people are doing a kick there, too.

we actually have limited space where we train, and we make adjustments steps when working our forms, all the time. But we never codify those steps into the form. Sounds like in the above example those steps got codified. We simply recognize that I'm out of space and need to step back for the next section. When the form is taught, it's taught as if there is enough space, without the adjustments. The adjustments are simply used where necessary and it's up to the individual to recognize where and when that is.

 

[MJS]

In my opinion, this is a big, fat, "it depends".

If we are talking about fundamental skills, i.e. proper stances, transitions, basic strikes, etc., then no, don't just go changing that. Assuming the instruction you are receiving is of high quality, then you are learning a specific way to do these things, based on certain principles. When practicing and drilling, you should always adhere to those principles because that reinforces your execution. Also, you need to understand that sometimes how things are drilled is not how you would actually use them in a real fight. But drilling them in a certain way develops a foundational skill that will be brought into play every time you deliver the fundamental skills, even if the delivery is different from how it is drilled.

Now, if we are talking about the scripted Self Defense Scenario techniques that are pretty typical and common among many of the Hawaiian/Chow/Parker derived kenpo branches, then I would say there is more room for adjustments. Personally, I have some strong reservations about this approach to structuring a curriculum, I honestly do not feel it's the best approach to training, but that is my opinion and many people feel it works quite well. I do not believe that all of these kinds of SD techs were well designed to begin with, some are simply bad ideas from the ground up. I think it just opens the door to making a lot of changes, and as long as the fundamental skills are adhered to and the foundational principles are kept in tact, then altering the SD techs probably doesn't matter so much, as long as there is a good reason for doing so and the result is something that actually makes sense.

If the quality of instruction you are receiving is not particularly high, then all of these issues may be simply jumbled and making changes isn't going to help you. If this is the case, then you simply need a better instructor.

Everybody believes that the instruction they are receiving is high quality. Let's be honest: if you did not believe so, you would not continue to get that instruction. So determining what is high quality and what is not, can be a tough call for someone to make. Everyone makes a judgement based on their personal experiences.

Yes, I agree with you 100% on the basics. Whats interesting, and IIRC, what I'm about to say next, has been talked about before, with one of those folks being Doc. Its interesting because at one of my old schools, you could have 2 or more versions of the way someone does a tech or kata. Imagine the look on the students face, as well as mine, when I'd show something and they'd say, "Thats not the way I learned it from so and so." So now, my version simply becomes another 'way' of doing the tech? I mean, I dont expect everyone to move like a robot, but when you have drastic changes.....

Doc has said that nobody in his school is allowed to do that, and personally, I don't disagree. I mean, like I said above...its one thing to show a variation, but everyone, IMO, should be on the same page with the base stuff, ie: SD, katas, stances, etc.

 

[MJS]

I'd agree.

There're things you shouldn't change; they're the key elements that make technique or sequence work. But beyond that? Adapt to the individual. I've got a guy in my class who was badly injured years ago, and lost most use of an arm. He knows the textbook way to do things, but obviously, can't. EVERYTHING he does has been adapted, adjusted, and tweaked. But if it maintains the key principles -- it's still OK.

The other thing is that, in reality, nothing works exactly the same when it's really being used. A punch that the script says goes to the head, they guy may turn a little away, and suddenly, there's no head to hit. Script may say a shot to the groin makes the guy bend down into an uppercut... but you just kicked the guy with brass balls who doesn't even flinch, so now you either whiff completely with that uppercut, or modify it to extend out into a different punch. And so on... So it never hurts to practice some variants on the scripts, too.

Exactly!

This reminds of the discussion with Ras & Doc not too long ago.

You have to learn the base technique, as is. You have to understand it. Once you understand the principles that make it work -- you can change it. That doesn't mean you can't make minor changes earlier, like hitting a chest instead of a face that you can't reach. But before making significant alterations, understand the technique. Too many people shortcut the process. There is a point of "if you can't make it work, you must be doing it wrong." But you also want to ask if it's the right technique for the situation, among other things. And there's a point when you can and probably should make some changes.

Agreed! And speaking of that..lol...there is rd.2 going on over at Kenpotalk...lol. Maybe its rd 3? LOL. But yes, even in Arnis, there've been some things that've given me issues, ie: locks. Amazing how a little tweak from someone who knows it better, can make it work for me.