In the end, are we all not simply doing our own thing?

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with this but it took me quite a few years and many different dojangs and instructors to come to this realization.

I have completed 9 full moves in the last 21 years and every time it has been a distance of at least 500 miles, but usually more around 1,000-7,000 miles, and each time I had to find a new dojang to train in once I arrived in the new city/State/Country..

I see a lot of the students (and Masters) of my original school, which I still really love and keep in contact with, devotedly trying to all do each technique and pooomsae EXACTLY the same.

I really think that this is not best. I think that it is okay to "evolve" (might sound pretentious but that's the best word I can come up with) some techniques over time and especially I find that I like to alter the rhythm and pace of some of the poomsae.

In my opinion, too many schools are too worried about making sure that every student does every technique/poomsae exactly the same way every time.

I am not advocating for a beginner to branch out on her/his own and not listen to their instructor, but I think that it is natural, after 10 or 20+ years, that instructors will start to change a bit and have their own "flavor" to their techniques.

This is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post. Now, a new student should absolutely be trying to replicate exactly. They won't be able to, they'll actually suck at replication, but they need to stay focused on that. Once you can replicate reasonably well, though, it's time to explore within a form or technique.

I've gone so far as to teach differently with forms. The short forms ("Classical Forms", 2-man forms) I was taught were quite precise. Angles were always the same, exactly the same stance, ending hand positions were exact, etc. I did away with most of that. I want to see adjustment for stiff knees, height differences, etc., since that's the kind of adaptation I'd expect to see in application. I then added long forms (no partner) to allow them to practice exact moves. Once they know the form, I encourage them to alter the form: try different angles, do it slower/faster, do it more smoothly/abruptly, do it with complete ease/with strength. Eventually, I'd even want to see them scramble the long form, recombining the techniques to practice a sequence that actually helps them. If I ever manage to develop a few instructors, I'm hoping they decide some of my forms are crap and make something that works better. Heck, I'd be happy to steal a form from an advanced student and make it part of my curriculum.

When folks try to replicate something exactly (like the folks you mention who keep the poomsae static), they're assuming what is there is more or less perfect. And that's a problem. It leads people to a dogmatic view of their art. They start to say things like, "We don't kick that way in X style. It's not how it's done," rather than rejecting the kick on a principle: "We don't kick that way in X style, because it exposes you to ____."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The title of this thread - says it all.

I clicked agree. And yet, I still posted a bunch of other thoughts. I'm hopeless.

 

[CB Jones]

I think that it is okay to "evolve" (might sound pretentious but that's the best word I can come up with) some techniques over time and especially I find that I like to alter the rhythm and pace of some of the poomsae.

I agree but probably shouldn't start evolving until you fully understand the technique and why it is taught that way.

You should be Evolving the technique not Devolving it.

For example, Our Sensei has a degree in Kinesiology. His Sensei had a PH.D in Kinesiology. Through years and years of training along with their Kinesiology background they have tweeked techniques to evolve those techniques.

Too often students who don't fully understand the principle behind the technique tweek techniques to make it easier to perform and in essence creates a bad habit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree but probably shouldn't start evolving until you fully understand the technique and why it is taught that way.

You should be Evolving the technique not Devolving it.

For example, Our Sensei has a degree in Kinesiology. His Sensei had a PH.D in Kinesiology. Through years and years of training along with their Kinesiology background they have tweeked techniques to evolve those techniques.

Too often students who don't fully understand the principle behind the technique tweek techniques to make it easier to perform and in essence creates a bad habit.

I've found that sometimes the tweak made by an inexperienced student can illustrate a problem with a technique. There are things I can do with techniques that are "better", but are also more technically difficult. By seeing students doing an easier (and arguably less-principled) version, I've simplified a few of the techniques as I teach them, and add in the more technical version later. That's not to say students playing with alterations early is universally good - I definitely rein that in so they don't develop bad habits. But it's not universally bad, either.

 

[CB Jones]

I've found that sometimes the tweak made by an inexperienced student can illustrate a problem with a technique. There are things I can do with techniques that are "better", but are also more technically difficult. By seeing students doing an easier (and arguably less-principled) version, I've simplified a few of the techniques as I teach them, and add in the more technical version later. That's not to say students playing with alterations early is universally good - I definitely rein that in so they don't develop bad habits. But it's not universally bad, either.

Sure, but you have the knowledge and experience to tell what tweak betters the technique and what tweak will lead to bad habits.

That is the difference the beginner often times lacks the knowledge to make that determination

 

[Tez3]

Sighs contentedly.... at reading a polite and interesting conversation.

 

[Balrog]

Hitting the dislike button, because sometimes you have to disagree, for principles' sake.

View attachment 20602

I have appropriated that graphic. Trust me, it will be well used.

 

[CB Jones]

Sighs contentedly.... at reading a polite and interesting conversation.

Until I go Juggalo up in here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure, but you have the knowledge and experience to tell what tweak betters the technique and what tweak will lead to bad habits.

That is the difference the beginner often times lacks the knowledge to make that determination

That's a good point. It is definitely up to the instructor to identify which tweaks to allow/encourage and which to squish like the bad habits they are. (That is, it's up to the instructor until the student has enough experience to experiment safely on their own.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sighs contentedly.... at reading a polite and interesting conversation.

Yeah, well **** you and your politeness!!!

 

[TSDTexan]

Yeah, well **** you and your politeness!!!

Be very careful with a polite brit... they are very dangerous.

 

[TSDTexan]

That's a good point. It is definitely up to the instructor to identify which tweaks to allow/encourage and which to squish like the bad habits they are. (That is, it's up to the instructor until the student has enough experience to experiment safely on their own.)

The problem can be a miseducated instructor perpetration of a bad technique of sequence.

"I was taught wrong, ingrained wrong, promoted wrong, and now I teach what is wrong, and heaven help the poor soul who tries to tell me otherwise".

And most students who come to the school will not have a clue. This is part of the Japanese Factory Dojo problem in Karatedo, which started just before it was exported to the mainland.

In Okinawa they trained one on one, and worked a single form for three to five years.
Training was tailored by the teacher to each specific student.

Itosu Yasutsune, aka Itosu Ankō overhauled a number of forms and created a simpler mass production pedagogical model.

Sacrifices were made, but it allowed for training of elementary school grade students to receive a standardized karate education.

The number of forms a student learned radically increased from 2 or 3 to about 15.

The depth of knowledge about the kata greatly decreased as training class time was limited.

So a broad shallow karate rather than a narrow but very deep karate was perpetrated on the mainland by popular teachers.

There were a few exceptions, most notably Motobu Choki, who taught his students a single form. The form was the Nifanchin (although it had been segmented into three smaller forms). He felt that it contained more than enough to teach a person everything he needed to fight.

The modern karate of Funakoshi Gichin and others who modernized were promulgated by G.I.s and international students.

It was very successful in spreading around the world.

But it was a "karate light" version in the eyes of the old order like Choki.

Choki doubted the new modern karate methods as to their effectiveness in preparing someone to fight.

What I am saying here may seem offensive to their modern karate sensibilities... but I am not trying to offend you...

A good example is when bunkai gets disconnected from kata, and the kata goes from mainland Japan, to Osan Airbase, Korea, then to Torrance California.

And then someone shows up, and breaks it down. We will take Kusanku for example...
Iain Abernathy gets invited to Chuck Norris' deal... please pay attention to the Yudansha... at the 6:25 minute Mark.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The problem can be a miseducated instructor perpetration of a bad technique of sequence.

"I was taught wrong, ingrained wrong, promoted wrong, and now I teach what is wrong, and heaven help the poor soul who tries to tell me otherwise".

That's the problem when training becomes dogmatic. There are things I was taught that I do differently now. I don't think the way I was taught was wrong, but I've found what I consider a "better" way - oftentimes in response to a challenge, question, or problem. I see the same when I visit my instructor's dojo - he has changed how he does some things from how they were done when I was there. As long as students and instructors are willing to challenge their beliefs and approach, dogma shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[BuckerooBonzai]

I agree but probably shouldn't start evolving until you fully understand the technique and why it is taught that way.

You should be Evolving the technique not Devolving it.

For example, Our Sensei has a degree in Kinesiology. His Sensei had a PH.D in Kinesiology. Through years and years of training along with their Kinesiology background they have tweeked techniques to evolve those techniques.

Too often students who don't fully understand the principle behind the technique tweek techniques to make it easier to perform and in essence creates a bad habit.

Oh, exactly! I did not start to branch out and question a few things and then start to "change" a few things until I had been doing it for over 15 years. It also really helped me to have trained under 10 different instructors throughout my years with over 4 of those years being in Korea (not that Korea defines the standard but to train with the old 8th and 9th Dan instructors--it is cool--in fact it was an old 9th Dan who told me to try to "feel" the essence of the poomsae and how it "spoke" to me and to let that influence my rhythm and timing. That one Master totally changed the way I looked at and approached all of my TKD training--and I like to think it changed it for the better.)

 

[TSDTexan]

That's the problem when training becomes dogmatic. There are things I was taught that I do differently now. I don't think the way I was taught was wrong, but I've found what I consider a "better" way - oftentimes in response to a challenge, question, or problem. I see the same when I visit my instructor's dojo - he has changed how he does some things from how they were done when I was there. As long as students and instructors are willing to challenge their beliefs and approach, dogma shouldn't be much of a problem.

If the primary principles are passed on through a better method, and it is really effective... then it's an alive art.

If the form is letter perfect, from generation to generation, but no understanding of the significance or learning of the principles is gained, it is "human parrots dancing".

I chuckle with sadness when I have visited a dojo where we spent two hours on forms, and then the last hour is sparring... and no one spars like the forms at all... but instead everyone drops in to side stances, and spends their sparing time doing freestyle.

 

[TSDTexan]

Be very careful with a polite brit... they are very dangerous.

Value the lesson here...
When bowing... never take your eyes off the person in front of you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

we all train in our respective methods, and do it the best that we understand it, and I'll bet that means that eventually, we do it differently from our classmates and from our instructors.

While I am certain that I do not do exactly what I was taught to do, I strive *not* to change what I was taught. It is never my goal to introduce any changes into the instruction given to me.

Some of us change the methodology a bit as we gain an understanding of the underlying principles and then come up with practices that reinforce those principles more effectively for us personally.

That has not been the case for me. Instead, what has happened is that as I have matured in my understanding, I have 'discovered' things that are actually present and were there for me to see all the time, had I been able to absorb the teaching. So rather than 'changing' the system, I am learning more about the system through my introspection, training, self-testing, and so on. If I think I have found something 'new', I always find that is not the case at all, which is fine with me. It reinforces my core belief that the system I train in is a complete system, deep, and solid. There's no 'new' to be found in it that I have discovered thus far.

The method, the system, is a way to build skill. The method can be changed. Sometimes change is well informed, sometimes it is naive and foolish.

I can't speak for others, but I can say this for myself. First, I am not authorized, nor would I want to be, to introduce changes into what I've been taught. Isshinryu is not in need of improvement that I'm aware of, and especially not by me. Second, I sincerely doubt my own ability to understand what I am doing well enough to modify anything, even for my own use. As mentioned above, sometimes I stumble across something I find useful and interesting, and come to find that it was always in the system, waiting for me to do what I just did.

There is a lot of stuff out there that I would say is junk. Maybe I'm right about some of it, maybe I'm wrong about some of it.

I have no doubt that there is a lot of utter crap out there, and sometimes it's a bit difficult for me to hold my tongue when I see it. That is my immature ego and pride speaking. I temper that with the understanding that not everyone trains for the same reasons. I hope that those who train in any system are getting something of value to themselves out of it and leave it at that. I don't need to be 'better than' anyone else, or anyone else's system. I am an inadequate martial artist and quite lacking in more than enough areas to be making judgments about others.

Nobody has a monopoly on the "right" way to do things, and yet a lot of people have no idea of what they do not understand.

Amen.

Spirited and rigorous debate is a good thing, but at the end of the day don't forget that what is posted here has no bearing on what happens in the world out there.

Also true.

But in the end, we are all doing our own thing, to the best of our understanding. We are responsible for our own training. Take ownership of what you know. Do it the best that you can. If you find out how to do it better, then do that.

Yes. Unless you can train in Isshinryu. Then do that. It is the best, you know.

I dunno, just felt like it needed to be said.

Well spoken, and thank you.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"This thing is within our art, and that thing is not."

Some WC guys think that

- hook punch
- roundhouse kick

are not in their system.

 

[Tez3]

Iain Abernethy........


As for Mr Bean, the actor who plays him has been playing Inspector Maigret, the Paris detective, a very model of quiet thoughtfulness who observes and thinks without making any hasty conclusions, a good lesson for many.

 

[Buka]

Until I go Juggalo up in here.

What's a "Juggalo"? We had that term back east - but it can't be the same thing.