Committed forms practitioners and instructors

[kidswarrior]

Noted author and karateist Bill Burgar spent five years reverse engineering one form (kata). At the end of what I found to be a very helpful book of similar name, he concludes that he wouldn’t do it again. This is because of his developing the ‘Burgar kata hypothesis’ which is that a martial artist should not be practicing someone else’s form. Now he does use the obvious qualifier, that on the way to developing ones own form, the student may benefit from learning other forms; but later, said student should not practice them so much as devise her/his own.

Further, Burgar posits that the individual’s form should die with him/her. This is because his view is that a form is a mnemonic of the collection (culmination) of each individual’s chosen techniques in response to the most common HAOV’s (habitual acts of violence) that each individual believes s/he will encounter. In this way, then, the individual’s form is not transferable to others in any meaningful way. (Again, he acknowledges there is a process that the student must go through to learn what works and doesn’t work for her/him). This whole concluding section of Burgar’s work suggests that fully 99% of martial arts practitioners and teachers will absolutely not change the forms they’ve learned in even one small way, let alone make radical adjustments or throw them out wholesale.

So, hardcore forms believers/teachers/ practitioners like myself, what are your thoughts? Is Burgar right? Or, should forms be left intact both in form and number for each art; maybe modified slightly through the generations; modified heavily as HAOV’s change with geography, culture, and individual; or eventually replaced with one’s own form(s).

My own thoughts are in flux, so I hope some can help by using this thread as a tool to ‘think out loud’ and in that way some of us can gain helpful insights. I’ll offer my own beliefs somewhere down the line, so as not to influence the direction of the thread.

And those who don’t believe in forms, please don’t add unhelpful posts along the lines of ‘all forms are useless’. We know and appreciate your beliefs, but this is a thread intended for those who do practice forms. Thanks.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I think the forms we learn should be left as we learned them. I also think we should explain what the moves realy are or could be used for, not just say this is a down block on a leg when the move could be much more.
I have no problem with new forms being added slowly to a system if they are a tool in learning to exacute more advanced techniques in a flow, but I do not agree with adding them just to add more forms.
I also am not happy with many "new" forms I see in compition that are flashy and acrobatic but ssem to have little selfdefence value, but that is OMHO

 

[Kacey]

The problem I see with creating your own forms is that people tend to focus on, and thus practice, what they are best at, and ignore things that seem to be hard or useless; unless forced in some fashion to practice the latter category, as many people do when practicing forms, the techniques that a person doesn't like can be dropped out... and therefore lost. I've created my own forms in the past for a variety of reasons, and it's a great training exercise - but like most people, I focused on those techniques I was best at and wanted to showcase. Forms force me to work on techniques I don't like, and as I become more comfortable with them within the form, I start to sue them other times, and to become yet more comfortable with them.

I'm not saying that all forms are perfect, nor that that the complete form set for a particular style contains every possible technique - but I while I see merit in creating your own form (and isn't step-sparring - assuming you create your own combinations, which we do, but some don't - a method of creating your own form?), it seems unlikely to me that one form, created by an individual, would cover as wide a range as the complete set in use by a style. But I could see creating your own form for various reasons - to work on a particular sequence, for demonstration, for fun, etc. - but I fail to see why it has to "die" with the practitioner who creates it; some will, no doubt, but some may not - if good enough, they could be taught as exercises, for others to work on exactly the same skills the creator created it for.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I have to add this

If an instructor of high rank or the founder of the system dies and some student that knew the instructor verry well makes a form that demonstrates the moves of the instructor when fighting or his favorite selfdefence moves then I have no problem withthe form being added to those taught

 

[SenseiBear]

I didn't vote cause I feel it is "Some combination of/All of the Above".

I think it is important to learn the old and other forms, as that is both where I extract and train various techniques. Forms become both a filing cabinet of technique as well as a garbage can for bad habits/motions. Periodically, I will re-train/examine my forms, looking to see what new levels of insight and technique I can gain from them with the experiences I have had since I last trained them.

However, at times I will find techniques in forms that will work better for me with slight modification. Then I will sometimes modify how I practice that form for myself, and I will sometimes show students the different ways - (I was shown this technique - but I practice it this way) so the students know both how the form is traditionally done, and how I train it differently and why.

A few forms have undergone radical changes under different instructors - and some of the changes I think are valuable, and some are less so - some I adopt, and some I do not. I have not radically changed any of my forms, though I don't rule out the possibility in the future.

Finally, in our style, at some point on the path to mastery it is expected that you create your own forms to codify your own techniques, lessons, and understandings to pass on to future generations as well.

 

[geezer]

The very nature of what forms are, their function and importance to training, varies radically from style to style. There may have been a time about 40 years ago when "martial arts" pretty much referred just to traditional Karate, Judo, Jujutsu and possibly Kenpo. But as time has passed and the martial traditions of so many other cultures have become part of the martial arts scene, it's hardly possible to say anything definitive without noting your style or context. This is especially true of the movement sets or "forms" within a style.

When I studied Chinese Kempo in the 70's, I was taught forms that were seen as sets of defensive movements and counters against a series of imaginary attacks. The system had innumerable forms, just as there are a nearly infinite number of ways you may be attacked and can defend yourself. Some of the forms were traditional and had roots in Chinese kung-fu. But most were probably invented or highly modified by my Shi-fu. In such a context, modifying forms was the norm--but this was reserved for the instructor since a high level of knowlege of the many complex movements was required.

In the late 70's and 80's I moved on to Wing Tsun. In the entire system there are only three empty-hand sets, plus the wooden dummy form and two weapons sets. Much more time was spent on chi-sau practice and sparring than forms. Unlike Kempo, the forms were not conceived of as imaginary combat scenarios with defenses and counters. Rather they were taught as a catalogue of techniques and combinations with a wide variety of applications. These applications would then be explored through chi-sau and sparring. Accordingly, a person would spend about five years doing the first three forms and could spend a couple of decades before being taught all six sets. A person could be considered "master" rank (=5th dan) and still have completed only the first four! In this environment, none but the Grandmaster of the system would dare to make any changes in the sets. And even he was reluctant to make more than minor alterations. Creativity would be expressed in free-form chi-sau and sparring.

Finally I added Philippine Combat Escrima to my repertoire, starting in the mid-80's. The FMA system I learned was based on simplicity and practicality. We learned practical striking and a limited set of defensive movements. My instructor, the GM of the system, would then arrange the movements into a form. As soon as we begin to get comfortable, he would change it, we would adapt, then he'd change it again. Then he'd ask us to make our own changes. Then, he'd make us change it again! In most of the FMA's, change, or transition and adaptability, is everything. The moment you get too comfortable, you challenge yourself to try a different approach. In this context, it is not only a good idea, but essential for a student to alter and personalize the forms. I demand it of my students.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I would like to have voted to leave forms as they have been learned, but instead chose the modified slightly over generations because I believe this is what happens naturally to forms anyway. I teach a very old tiger form, but I am sure that the way it looks now is not the way it looked 100 years ago. Its no so much that it has evolved as it has just changed with each new teacher, myself included. Different body shapes will produce different versions of the form.

I also happen to think that Bill Burgar is right in that you should be doing your own forms. This to me has two aspects. The first involves the forms that have been handed down to us by the elders of our various arts. The three other students of my generation at my teachers school have different body shapes to me and consequently we all did our forms differently. You could still tell which form it was, but they were different. Our teacher saw this as a good thing as the forms had been adapted, not changed, to suit our shapes and personalities. this gives us the basis to move on to the second aspect.

The second aspect is what we call Spirit Fighting Forms. These are individual developments of synthetic mnemonics drawn from the knowledge garnered from the other forms. Spirit Fighting Forms are highly individualistic and do not resemble other forms except in individual parts. These forms would be annalogous to those Bill Burgar posits die with the individual practitioner. They are, to me, an expression of what we have learned from all of our training - forms, drills, one-step - all of it.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I dunno.. to me forms are not the end but the beginning. They are not the goal of the training but just a foundational part of the training. If you don't take the individual techniques out of the form and find out what they are there for and what the are designed to defend and attack... and practice *that*, then what are you doing? A form is a catalog of techniques in the art; but it points the way to something else... something bigger

Every musician learns the drills and exercises taught by their teacher(s), but over time they drop the ones that don't work and develop their own that work for them. Taken with the above, it just seems to make sense to me that eventually you would develop your own patterns of combinations that follow your mentality toward your martial training, just as a jazz musician will develop is own warm ups and rhythm and scale drills which are far different how a rock musician will approach the same needs.

But the scales and drills are not music, they develop the muscle memory and mental discipline and patterns of motion that a musician must use... but they themselves are almost never music and often never even very musical and in my mind forms are the same way, the give you abstractions of martial movements from which you must take and develop martial skills, however that works for you

 

[kidswarrior]

I dunno.. to me forms are not the end but the beginning. They are not the goal of the training but just a foundational part of the training.

I had this discussion recently, and it's an interesting point.

If forms are the beginning, then it seems they are one thing. They would have to follow the course already set. Beginners would have no clue as to how or why they might be modified. Steel Tiger touches on this in his *very old Tiger form.*

But if they are the culmination of some years of practice, then they are something else. The first we would have to be given in order to start us off. But this culmination would have to be our own creation, again something S-T alludes to as his art's Spirit Fighting Forms.

I personally have found that over my 15 years--not that long in the arts--I have kept some forms essentially intact, modified a few for more effectiveness, and created some of my own. Pretty much the answer SenseiBear preferred. The kicker is that the total number I teach has gone from the 20+ I learned to 8. So I can actually understand what geezer is saying when he talks about 5th degrees only knowing four forms. I can now understand (for the first time) how just one form could encompass a whole fighting system--have a couple of such that I now work with. Only reason I don't teach just one is that it may not be the one that some student or other would choose, so I strive to give enough of a range that they can get a full sense of possible movements and also later have the tools to create *their* form.

 

[CoryKS]

I dunno, it sounds like he's suggesting that each martial artist reinvent the wheel. Like FearlessFreep, the analogy that came to mind for me was music. You learn scales and chords, then start playing music that someone else has written. Only when you've moved to the stage where you understand how the sounds go together can you start playing your own stuff. But an important part of that is studying what past musicians have come up with. You said:

Now he does use the obvious qualifier, that on the way to developing ones own form, the student may benefit from learning other forms; but later, said student should not practice them so much as devise her/his own.

But this isn't just a qualifier, IMO. It's the point that breaks the whole hypothesis. If each individual's form dies with him, there's nothing to learn from.

 

[still learning]

Hello, What would "Bruce Lee" think about Katas and forms? if he was alive today? and others who see things differently?

OK (not a fan of katas or forms)....we have them and we must learn them because it is a part of our Kempo system.

Things change, fighting changes, most people do not carry swords..katas was not design for hand gunsm,rifles...even knife defense or attacks. Old katas that is still practice today. ( I could be wrong here?...Sorry)

If your forms or kata does not progress to the modern times...are we cheating the new modern students? Katas and forms need to be updated and change to the changing times? agree tor disagree?

Remember the way you train is the way you will fight? ....does your form/kata will allow you to fight in this modern world?

against wrestlers, boxers, kicking boxing, muay tai,MMA styles, and others?

Aloha, (here we go again?) smile...enjoy the changing of ideas?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I dunno.. to me forms are not the end but the beginning. They are not the goal of the training but just a foundational part of the training. If you don't take the individual techniques out of the form and find out what they are there for and what the are designed to defend and attack... and practice *that*, then what are you doing? A form is a catalog of techniques in the art; but it points the way to something else... something bigger

I, too, think that forms are the beginning of learning and understanding. Simply knowing how to do the form is not enough. It needs to be disected and examined, often for no other reason than the shape of a technique inside a form is not exactly as it is performed standing alone. Forms are training manuals, they are memory joggers. They can never be the entirety of training even though they might contain all the elements of a fighting system.

I dunno, it sounds like he's suggesting that each martial artist reinvent the wheel. Like FearlessFreep, the analogy that came to mind for me was music. You learn scales and chords, then start playing music that someone else has written. Only when you've moved to the stage where you understand how the sounds go together can you start playing your own stuff. But an important part of that is studying what past musicians have come up with.

But this isn't just a qualifier, IMO. It's the point that breaks the whole hypothesis. If each individual's form dies with him, there's nothing to learn from.

I can see exactly what you are talking about, but I think I can also understand what Bill Burgar is referring to. I look at forms as falling into two broad groups. The first groups we all know very well. They are those forms that have been created with the purpose of teaching a style or art. These forms have been written down and , in many cases, transmitted through the centuries to us now. The other group are those highly individual forms that we all create from time to time. I referred earlier to Spirit Fighting Forms these forms are very specific to each person and are not taught one to another, that's not their purpose. There purpose is to allow a student to express their understanding of the fighting system, not just the forms. These forms may change day to day, they may stay the same for months. They're fluid and dynamic and are not suited to teaching to others.

 

[Taijiman]

I voted for all the choices I think each is appropriate in different situations, as not all forms and systems are created equal. In Chinese martial art you have an extremely wide variety of styles (say, 150-200 with even more branches off these main roots). Some of the different types and ways of doing forms...

Choreographed and semi-free style Shadow boxing: Basically the forms are straight up self defense/fighting technique with little to no modification necessary.

Forms that consist of fighting technique but with modifications for building flexibility and strength.

Forms that are combined with soft qigong health practices like in taiji quan, shaolin soft boxing, and other soft "internal" forms found in various styles.

Forms that are basically qigong with a martial element or created as qigong to develop a specific type of skill for martial artists. Or forms that are entirely for health but with a loose connection to a martial art (like Mulan Quan for example).

 

[Taijiman]

And not all old traditional forms were necessarily well put together or useful anymore, and some systems have more "baggage" than others. Some may have been developed with a performance element for public demonstration. Some old kungfu artists had to become street performers for economic reasons, or would do public demonstrations during celebrations. And there's been multiple times in China's history where civilian martial art practice would be banned and technique would be practiced as part of more performance oriented forms to show government officials.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Noted author and karateist Bill Burgar spent five years reverse engineering one form (kata). At the end of what I found to be a very helpful book of similar name, he concludes that he wouldn’t do it again. This is because of his developing the ‘Burgar kata hypothesis’ which is that a martial artist should not be practicing someone else’s form. Now he does use the obvious qualifier, that on the way to developing ones own form, the student may benefit from learning other forms; but later, said student should not practice them so much as devise her/his own.

Further, Burgar posits that the individual’s form should die with him/her. This is because his view is that a form is a mnemonic of the collection (culmination) of each individual’s chosen techniques in response to the most common HAOV’s (habitual acts of violence) that each individual believes s/he will encounter. In this way, then, the individual’s form is not transferable to others in any meaningful way. (Again, he acknowledges there is a process that the student must go through to learn what works and doesn’t work for her/him). This whole concluding section of Burgar’s work suggests that fully 99% of martial arts practitioners and teachers will absolutely not change the forms they’ve learned in even one small way, let alone make radical adjustments or throw them out wholesale.

So, hardcore forms believers/teachers/ practitioners like myself, what are your thoughts? Is Burgar right? Or, should forms be left intact both in form and number for each art; maybe modified slightly through the generations; modified heavily as HAOV’s change with geography, culture, and individual; or eventually replaced with one’s own form(s).

My own thoughts are in flux, so I hope some can help by using this thread as a tool to ‘think out loud’ and in that way some of us can gain helpful insights. I’ll offer my own beliefs somewhere down the line, so as not to influence the direction of the thread.

And those who don’t believe in forms, please don’t add unhelpful posts along the lines of ‘all forms are useless’. We know and appreciate your beliefs, but this is a thread intended for those who do practice forms. Thanks.

First I didn't vote because my answer was not there.

Should the forms we've learned be:
left intact in number and form as we learned them

They never are so why worry about it. I have never seen a student do the form exactly the same as the instructor. Although my Sifu was told by his Sifu’s oldest son (Ting Hu Ling) that his form (my sifu’s) look very much like his Sifu’s (Tung Ying Jie) it is still not the same and Tung Hu Ling modified it a bit more, but nothing drastic.

modified slightly through the generations of instructors

They always are so again why worry about it. There are no two people exactly alike both physically and mentally therefore you will always get slight variations on every form. Eventually if those variations venture far from the original you have another form. Example Chen style Laojia Yilu and Erlu and Xinjia Yilu and erlu. And then from Laojia you get the Yang style long form. Multiple styles of Xingyiquan and Baguazhang as well and form Xingyiquan after much modification you get Yiquan and you also have Wing Chun leading to JKD and so on.

Changing a form is fine but changing it drastically and calling it the same in my opinion is wrong.

modified--possibly heavily--as times change

On occasion yes, if need be but then they are no longer of the style such as changing Xingyiquan drastically and ending up with Yiquan or modifying multiple styles like Shuaijiao, Long Fist and Qinna then using them in unison and still calling them shuaijiao, long fist or Qinna when in fact it is none of the but yet still in part made up from them. What you have (plus some other stuff) is Sanda and this I am ok with.

eventually replaced with one's own unique form

You can but again it is no longer the same style.

And Bruce Lee did exactly that but he did not call it Wing Chun, first it was Junfan Kung fu and then Jeet Kune Do. As did Wang Xiang Zhai with Xingyiquan which became Yiquan.

Chen became Yang and Yang Became Wu all still Taiji but not the same taiji. If you take taiji and modify it by adding long fist, karate, aikido or Muay Thai it is no longer taiji. If you modify the forms to a point where it is running on a completely different base philosophy (like I am beginning to feel at least one fairly popular style has) it is no longer taiji even If you label it as such.

 

[searcher]

The forms need to be left alone. But I do think people should research and experiment with other forms. This would allow them to put all of their knowledge into a form of their own creation. This could then be added to what they teach.

There is a reason why the forms we practice are the way they are. Most, if not all, were a part of a masters' life's work and should be appreciated as such. We need to learn from what they have given us, not just push it aside because it does not work for us. JMHO.

 

[pstarr]

Exactly. If it "doesn't work" it's probably because you're doing it wrong or you don't understand it-

 

[MJS]

Noted author and karateist Bill Burgar spent five years reverse engineering one form (kata). At the end of what I found to be a very helpful book of similar name, he concludes that he wouldn’t do it again. This is because of his developing the ‘Burgar kata hypothesis’ which is that a martial artist should not be practicing someone else’s form. Now he does use the obvious qualifier, that on the way to developing ones own form, the student may benefit from learning other forms; but later, said student should not practice them so much as devise her/his own.

Further, Burgar posits that the individual’s form should die with him/her. This is because his view is that a form is a mnemonic of the collection (culmination) of each individual’s chosen techniques in response to the most common HAOV’s (habitual acts of violence) that each individual believes s/he will encounter. In this way, then, the individual’s form is not transferable to others in any meaningful way. (Again, he acknowledges there is a process that the student must go through to learn what works and doesn’t work for her/him). This whole concluding section of Burgar’s work suggests that fully 99% of martial arts practitioners and teachers will absolutely not change the forms they’ve learned in even one small way, let alone make radical adjustments or throw them out wholesale.

So, hardcore forms believers/teachers/ practitioners like myself, what are your thoughts? Is Burgar right? Or, should forms be left intact both in form and number for each art; maybe modified slightly through the generations; modified heavily as HAOV’s change with geography, culture, and individual; or eventually replaced with one’s own form(s).

My own thoughts are in flux, so I hope some can help by using this thread as a tool to ‘think out loud’ and in that way some of us can gain helpful insights. I’ll offer my own beliefs somewhere down the line, so as not to influence the direction of the thread.

And those who don’t believe in forms, please don’t add unhelpful posts along the lines of ‘all forms are useless’. We know and appreciate your beliefs, but this is a thread intended for those who do practice forms. Thanks.

I think that all of the options can relate to this subject in some way. Personally, I'm not one to create my own form. IMO, there are already many forms in an art, and it can take a long time to really understand what the form is all about. Now, when I say create my own, I'm referring to what you usually see in some schools when you test for 1st degree black. Part of the test is usually to create your own kata. Now, I have done this, for the sole purpose of my 1st degree. Of course, ask me to do that kata today and I would not even be able to begin the 1st move.

Just like techniques, kata will be modified as its passed down from one to the next. How much its modified depends on the person who began the passing down process. Teacher A, teaches the kata to B. B keeps its the same as A, and then teaches it to C. C makes slight adjustments, and then teaches D. Already you have modifications in progress. The list goes on and on. So that begs the question: Why make a change at all? Was there something that didnt make sense, so teacher C felt it necessary to modify it? Perhaps its because C really didn't understand the kata. But, this is where I'm split. I really don't see too much wrong with slight mods. as long as they're staying within the general context of the kata. I highly doubt that a traditional Shotokan or other Japanese kata will have cartwheels, handstands and a person jumping into the air throwing 4 kicks before they land. Adding things like that, IMHO, totally take away from tradition to substitute it for flash, that you typically see in many tournaments today. Those changes could be substituting hard, stiff, rigid movements for something more fluid and relaxed.

 

[kidswarrior]

I think that all of the options can relate to this subject in some way. Personally, I'm not one to create my own form. IMO, there are already many forms in an art, and it can take a long time to really understand what the form is all about.

This seems to be a majority opinion in the poll/thread, at least for many/most of the forms in an art. There are a few, however, who seem to feel strongly that forms must be more intently personalized/modified. All good responses, and a lot of food for thought. :asian:

Just like techniques, kata will be modified as its passed down from one to the next. How much its modified depends on the person who began the passing down process. Teacher A, teaches the kata to B. B keeps its the same as A, and then teaches it to C. C makes slight adjustments, and then teaches D. Already you have modifications in progress. The list goes on and on. So that begs the question: Why make a change at all? Was there something that didnt make sense, so teacher C felt it necessary to modify it?

As I read the thread, it seems I didn't allow for a nuance here: some feel change is inevitable from generation to generation--whether intended or not, because forms are done by people and people are just naturally different (body type, mentality, etc.); and change made deliberately, as MJS alludes to with the 'didn't make sense' question. The latter would seem to call us to more intense scrutiny of a form and its applications, whether historically 'built in' or through reverse engineering, before making deliberate changes or creating a whole new form.

Perhaps its because C really didn't understand the kata. But, this is where I'm split. I really don't see too much wrong with slight mods. as long as they're staying within the general context of the kata. I highly doubt that a traditional Shotokan or other Japanese kata will have cartwheels, handstands and a person jumping into the air throwing 4 kicks before they land. Adding things like that, IMHO, totally take away from tradition to substitute it for flash, that you typically see in many tournaments today.

Not to mention the cost of being in traction and the boredom of lying in a hospital bed that most of us over the ages of 15-20 or so would have to bear. Guess I could have put more emphasis on the fact I was only really thinking of serious fighting forms/arts/artists. On the other hand, this is the only type of poster we've had, so guess it's all good.

Thanks everyone who's participated to this point. I'm really seeing some things for the first time. :asian: Am hoping some others are having the same experience, and we have some more contributions as I think there's more here to explore. For example, is it even possible to transmit forms from one generation to the next without change, even if one is trying to do so? And at what point does modification (and X-S spoke to this quite well) make what we're doing a whole new art? Also, if our instructor encourages us to begin designing our own forms, is this usually just a grading requirement, or are there instructors who really mean this in a substantive manner, who really want senior students to begin to personalize their practice?

 

[MJS]

This seems to be a majority opinion in the poll/thread, at least for many/most of the forms in an art. There are a few, however, who seem to feel strongly that forms must be more intently personalized/modified. All good responses, and a lot of food for thought. :asian:

Now this raises an interesting question. Lets say you have 6 teachers at a school. All 6 know the same form, yet all 6 have also made their own adjustments or modifications to them. Will there be, at some point, a conflict with the students when teaching? If each teacher has his/her own way of doing the kata, you'll have a large variation. Everyone in the school will do the same kata, yet it'll be different.

Not to mention the cost of being in traction and the boredom of lying in a hospital bed that most of us over the ages of 15-20 or so would have to bear. Guess I could have put more emphasis on the fact I was only really thinking of serious fighting forms/arts/artists. On the other hand, this is the only type of poster we've had, so guess it's all good.

Well, IMO, that is what kata were originally intended for...fighting. So when I see a traditional kata turned into a gymnastics routine, for the sake of flash and winning a plastic trophy, I'm sure the masters of the past are turning in their graves.

Thanks everyone who's participated to this point. I'm really seeing some things for the first time. :asian: Am hoping some others are having the same experience, and we have some more contributions as I think there's more here to explore. For example, is it even possible to transmit forms from one generation to the next without change, even if one is trying to do so? And at what point does modification (and X-S spoke to this quite well) make what we're doing a whole new art? Also, if our instructor encourages us to begin designing our own forms, is this usually just a grading requirement, or are there instructors who really mean this in a substantive manner, who really want senior students to begin to personalize their practice?

Yes, this is a great thread with some great replies.

As for making changes..like I said in my post...I think it is possible as long as you keep to the context of the kata and the art. As for designing your own kata...if someone wants to put one together for a rank test or for their own personal enjoyment, thats fine. But, to do it for the sake of expanding knowledge or something along those lines, I don't think its a good idea. Between the SKK katas I have and the EPAK/Tracy katas, I have more than enough to keep me busy.