How many of you have made up your own forms or variations of existing forms either to aid in student instruction or to enhance your own training? Are forms strictly something "set in stone" and handed down from the masters of previous generations, or can they also be an evolving set of useful training sequences to be altered as needed to produce the desired results? Any thoughts?
Making up your own forms?
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I've done it, in an attempt to lasso some system material into the context of a form to make it easier for me to remember it all and complete the catalog of the system for my own training purposes.
Ultimately my understanding of forms changed dramatically, and I no longer train in that particular method, I don't practice any of it anymore. In hindsight, I believe the integrity of that material in particular was questionable, so the exercise yielded results that were questionable. But the notion as a whole, I think, for the right people (not for everyone) could be valuable.
Forms were not handed down to us by the gods. They are not sacred, and can be changed or discarded. However, not everyone is in a position to make changes that make sense, or lead to an improvement. The problem is, too many people think they can do it, when they really should not.
Ultimately my understanding of forms changed dramatically, and I no longer train in that particular method, I don't practice any of it anymore. In hindsight, I believe the integrity of that material in particular was questionable, so the exercise yielded results that were questionable. But the notion as a whole, I think, for the right people (not for everyone) could be valuable.
Forms were not handed down to us by the gods. They are not sacred, and can be changed or discarded. However, not everyone is in a position to make changes that make sense, or lead to an improvement. The problem is, too many people think they can do it, when they really should not.
Koshiki
Brown Belt
I love making my own kata. They're usually crap.
The only Kata I truly study are the 5 Pinan, 3 Naihanchi, 3 versions of Bassai, and Sanchin and Tensho. I don't study my own forms.
I don't even try to remember my own forms. I've created many, the only one I remember at all is the one I've been creating for the past couple months. They've all been crap, and I don't create them for their own sake.
So why create them? Because, as I try to choose sequences that I find are important, and then how to record the essence of that lesson in solo-technique, as I try to decide what motions best represent, rather than explicitly depict the idea of the motion, rather than the motion, I learn things about the traditional kata.
When I try to depict passing an arm to take the back with a choke, as I work through 5 possible representations, it gives me insight into where the kata I truly study might already contain that same pass and choke.
Even more than that, practicing encoding is for me, the easiest way to understand decoding.
Think about this, if you've never installed an electrical outlet, how much harder is it to figure out why the outlet is sparking?
If you remember the feeling of being a child, how much easier is it to communicate with children?
If you never written a piece of music, how much harder is musical analysis?
If you've never taught, how much harder is it to learn?
To try to understand the work of another is always difficult. To understand the work of another in a field in which you have never worked is more so.
If I want to understand how to understand a kata that someone else has created, for me, part of that proccess is understanding how I would go about creating kata. However crappy the kata I create, the more I understand the process, the easier it is for me to understand what may have been the process of others.
Understanding kata is not just disassembly. It's also analysis and reassembly. Knowing how to assemble a thing in the first place can do nothing but aid you in dissassmbly, analysis, and reassembly.
------------------------
But finally, the forms of a given style were, as Flying Crane says, not gifted from the gods. They were created by people, many of whom probably masterful, some of them probably not.
Try this experiment. Take three techniques, string them together in an interesting but meaningless way, and ask someone who's opinion on form analysis you respect to help you understand them.
I guarantee they'll find some really cool insight in there, that you in no way intended. It might be so cool and illuminating you think you just got lucky. So try it again. And again. Eventually, you have to admit that if the movement is sound, the meaning is applied by the practitioner, rather than the creator.
Now try a related experiment. Think of a brief application, and attempt to create a a short solo-movement to represent it. Now give it to said interpreter, and see if they come up with the same interpretation you intended. Perhaps they do. Ask for a second interpretation. Bet they'll find things in that motion you never intended.
Again, meaning is often found by the practitioner, regardless of what was intended by the creator.
Side note: Obviously, I refer to the forms and styles where movement is not explicit, and where application is interpretive. I know of at least a few styles in which forms are clear and unquestionably dictating a single, identifiable application. My experience is with Okinawan forms via Japan and Korea, so the intent is less clear, the motions often stylized and idealized, the original applications lost.
The only Kata I truly study are the 5 Pinan, 3 Naihanchi, 3 versions of Bassai, and Sanchin and Tensho. I don't study my own forms.
I don't even try to remember my own forms. I've created many, the only one I remember at all is the one I've been creating for the past couple months. They've all been crap, and I don't create them for their own sake.
So why create them? Because, as I try to choose sequences that I find are important, and then how to record the essence of that lesson in solo-technique, as I try to decide what motions best represent, rather than explicitly depict the idea of the motion, rather than the motion, I learn things about the traditional kata.
When I try to depict passing an arm to take the back with a choke, as I work through 5 possible representations, it gives me insight into where the kata I truly study might already contain that same pass and choke.
Even more than that, practicing encoding is for me, the easiest way to understand decoding.
Think about this, if you've never installed an electrical outlet, how much harder is it to figure out why the outlet is sparking?
If you remember the feeling of being a child, how much easier is it to communicate with children?
If you never written a piece of music, how much harder is musical analysis?
If you've never taught, how much harder is it to learn?
To try to understand the work of another is always difficult. To understand the work of another in a field in which you have never worked is more so.
If I want to understand how to understand a kata that someone else has created, for me, part of that proccess is understanding how I would go about creating kata. However crappy the kata I create, the more I understand the process, the easier it is for me to understand what may have been the process of others.
Understanding kata is not just disassembly. It's also analysis and reassembly. Knowing how to assemble a thing in the first place can do nothing but aid you in dissassmbly, analysis, and reassembly.
------------------------
But finally, the forms of a given style were, as Flying Crane says, not gifted from the gods. They were created by people, many of whom probably masterful, some of them probably not.
Try this experiment. Take three techniques, string them together in an interesting but meaningless way, and ask someone who's opinion on form analysis you respect to help you understand them.
I guarantee they'll find some really cool insight in there, that you in no way intended. It might be so cool and illuminating you think you just got lucky. So try it again. And again. Eventually, you have to admit that if the movement is sound, the meaning is applied by the practitioner, rather than the creator.
Now try a related experiment. Think of a brief application, and attempt to create a a short solo-movement to represent it. Now give it to said interpreter, and see if they come up with the same interpretation you intended. Perhaps they do. Ask for a second interpretation. Bet they'll find things in that motion you never intended.
Again, meaning is often found by the practitioner, regardless of what was intended by the creator.
Side note: Obviously, I refer to the forms and styles where movement is not explicit, and where application is interpretive. I know of at least a few styles in which forms are clear and unquestionably dictating a single, identifiable application. My experience is with Okinawan forms via Japan and Korea, so the intent is less clear, the motions often stylized and idealized, the original applications lost.
It is required that we make our own forms. The whole idea is that you take the first part of each form, say short form one, which just happens to have the same opening move to any given self defense technique, you do a tech, after that move, or replace, the form sequence with a tech sequence. It is easy. 
Great observations. And BTW, I have tried this sort of exercise... and have gotten exactly the kind of response you describe.
Again, I've done exactly this sort of thing with students ...with similar results. In fact, I've done it with myself. You know, I've gone back, after a long layoff, and looked at movements from one of those "piece of crap" home-made forms you mentioned (Yes, I do them too). Often I realize that the original application I had in mind was a poor fit, and then further realized that the movements had with far superior interpretations. Probably because it's really not about specific applications of techniques at all, but concepts. And if the concepts are sound, then the sequences can be applied in innumerable ways.
Personally, I find that "experiments" or "exercises" like this can be very helpful in furthering understanding.
One note of clarification. I've never messed with my WC forms. With drills, yeah, and with Escrima, sure. More on that later.
I suppose you could say I have, but not really. What I mean is, I am currently learning a new weapon. I picked it up, tried to get used to moving with it, and experimented with some of the obvious attack and defend movements I might make with it. I then sort of started doing an empty-handed kata, but using this weapon in it. Wherever I would have blocked with an empty hand, I blocked with the weapon; wherever I would have punched, I struck with the weapon, etc. New kata? Not really. Just playing around.
That's probably not what you were thinking of. I have not come up with any of my own kata to teach to others. I have been taught some kata that are not part of our system, but which have become semi-traditional 'dojo katas'. We learn them, we practice them, but we are all made to understand they are not part of the system. No one is required to learn them to advance in training or rank, for example. They're just fun, relatively simple, good teaching tools, and easy to understand for beginners.
However, as far as kata that is part of our system, no, I don't change that, and we do not change that.
Agreed. Katas clearly have been changed at various times, by various people. My own soke obviously modified kata from the systems he learned in order to create his own system. However, I am not soke, and since soke is gone, I do not feel that I am authorized to change his system; nor do I feel anyone else is either.
If I felt some incredible need to do my own thing, I'd create my own system, give it a name, promote myself to tenth dan, and hang out my shingle. However, I don't think I'm going to do that, now or in the future. If others want to do that, entirely their business.
Yes. This is exactly how I feel about the Wing Chun forms I was taught by my old sifu. He is head of his branch of the Yip Man lineage and made a few small changes in the forms himself after much research and deliberation. I'm not about to change anything in those forms myself though. Heck I will never completely understand them as they are. Deep stuff.
On the other hand, since I am no longer in that association, I do make small changes in our "Lat-sau" drills and "Chi-sau" training sets. But such things were always allowed, even by my old sifu. After all, they were just drills.
Now with my P.C.E. Escrima, the forms are directly derived from training sets put together by my original FMA instructor. I just expanded them into a group of forms, applying the same concepts to a variety of weapons and ranges. So yeah, you could say I made up new forms. But my old instructor didn't care about that. He teaches concepts, not technique, and not forms that are set in stone. He flat out told us, "When the form gets too easy or boring, change it. Add a punch or a kick. Change up the sequence. Make it work for you. The form doesn't matter. Who your instructors are doesn't matter. What matters is what you can do."
...And he is considered a Grandmaster. Head of his system. A bit of a contrarian perhaps, but then he teaches FMA. And it's just a little different flavor than other TMAs. So, following his lead, I re-arranged our material into some training forms. So far, they are working well. And if they don't get results, ...I'll change them!
Back in the 70's we made up a few forms for some or our kids so they could perform them at tournaments. It was at their request and, as they were good students, we said sure. We left it up to the students to name the form, which they had to do in front of the judging panel at the tourney. I'll never forget what young Debbie named hers "Made Up Kata Number One".
I always like that kid.
But other than back then, no. However, when I'm going through my warm up routine, I get to a certain point where I do the same combination of footwork, punches, shoulder rolls, bobs, weaves and elbows. It's not a Kata, but it's a particular pattern of movement (that never changes) consisting of techniques used in my style.
I always like that kid.
But other than back then, no. However, when I'm going through my warm up routine, I get to a certain point where I do the same combination of footwork, punches, shoulder rolls, bobs, weaves and elbows. It's not a Kata, but it's a particular pattern of movement (that never changes) consisting of techniques used in my style.
Same here.
If you're going to practice an art that involves solo kata with ambiguous interpretations, this strikes me as a very intelligent way to get the maximum value out of the kata.
This sort of thing is why practice of solo kata with multiple interpretations won't work for me.
I see it all the time in kata discussions. "Movement 4 from kata A is a block." "No, it's really a strike." "No, it's really a throw." "No, it's really a choke." "It can be all of those things! It just depends on how you interpret the kata."
For me, however, it can't usefully be all of those things. If the movement is intended as a throw, the body alignment, power generation, timing, and a host of other important details are very different from what they would need to be if the movement was intended as a block. The body mechanics that are necessary to execute one effectively are not the same as those necessary to execute the other.
What I'm gathering from many devotees of solo kata is that the representation of the techniques is more symbolically encoded than literal. If you look just at the most broad description of the gross physical movement ("Rotate 90 degrees, step out with the right leg while taking your right hand from the upper left quadrant and extending it down to the lower right quadrant.") you can find a host of techniques that might conceivably involve something like those parameters.
The reason it wouldn't be helpful for me is that from my experience in order to improve on a technique I need to drill the actual movements as accurately as possible - including all the large and small details: hand placement, power generation, body alignment, timing, and so on. If you tell me that a given lift of the foot in a solo kata might be a code for a knee strike or a foot sweep or a kick counter, that's about as helpful to me as telling me you found a hidden code in a Shakespeare play "If you start at the second act and take the first letter of every third word it spells out 'knee strik swippe or kik counter.'" Maybe it does or maybe it doesn't, but that doesn't help me get better at what I do.
I do understand the concept of fundamental movement patterns that can be applied in many different ways. For example, in BJJ the technical standup movement can be used for a variety of sweeps and escapes. However it's the actual same body movement in different contexts, not just a symbolic encoding.
I do see that there are plenty of accomplished martial artists who I respect who say that this approach to kata does help them. I'm in no position to tell them it doesn't, so more power to them. I know enough about how I learn to know that it wouldn't help me and I don't quite grok how it helps them (despite all the explanations), but everybody learns in their own way.
Some would see Wing Chuns forms this way. The forms train principles, structure, movements and positioning, power generation and release and so on, not specific applications. This "ambiguity" regarding application is deliberate and is one reason why comparatively few forms suffice to encompass the entire system.
I certainly need to train the same way, which is why I spend the majority of my time training in ways that provide the kind of specific feedback you describe. Forms are just one part of the equation. In our WC, the four essential aspects of training are forms, drills, chi-sau, and sparring.
Koshiki
Brown Belt
Love the Shakespeare bit. Honestly, that's pretty accurate, I think, even amongst people who claim to have found not only accurate original techniques, but even the tactics, strategies, and sometimes overarching progressions within a whole kata. It's not actually in the kata, the kata is somewhat superfluous, and you don't train the kata to get good at the technique.
This is where I'm probably miscommunication, and also where I may differ with many here, but here goes, clearly stated:
Training the solo kata will not teach you to employ the applications you learn from the kata.
I agree. For that you need drills. Here's a basic step-by-step outline of my approach to kata-based martial art, assuming an already established background in applied technique.
- Study the kata to find where it accidentally spells out "knee strik swippe or kik counter."
- Drill that application incessantly with a partner in a variety of ways and degrees of resistance and cooperation.
- Incorporate the application into your sparring where appropriate.
- It makes it easy to remember all your favorite drills, because you have a fun mnemonic, otherwise it's easy to realize you haven't drilled X in months. Or years. Or that it sort of dropped out of recollection.
- It provides you with a puzzle that will push you to create new drills. More drills is not equal to better, but essentially they mainly become variations on a theme, and the more variations you've become familiar with, the better you can apply to overall theme in rapidly changing and unpredictable situations. Also, it means that the drills you practice will be the drills that work best for you, as opposed to what worked best for your teacher. And honestly, if I had to fight the way my primary instructor fought, I'd be toast. Or my secondary teachers.
I'm not claiming this is the right way, and I certainly don't think it's the way most people practice, but it's my explanation, nonetheless.
First thanks to geezer for opening this form.
I have in the past been asked to create a staff form for a student. (the system we where then studying did not have one) so I did staying within my limited knowledge of the weapon, it's uses, and the students ability. After watching the student perform the form I asked him what he was doing with each move and how that move went to the next and why. listening to his thoughts (which where not necessarily the same as mine) I changed a few things in the form to go better with his thought process and knowledge. Today I have almost no recollection of the sequence of moves in the form, it was for the student to practice and maybe learn basic moves and not anything I was ever going to use.
A few years back I took a form, one of my friends in a different system loved and changed it into something that was more in line with what my system did. I was never going to see that person again and wanted to hold his memory close by doing this and the original form I was unable to do because of physical difference. I have since shown this form to various groups but each time I show it I change it a little depending on what the group dose normally in their study. As for myself I have made the form flow better with a couple small changes and have found out it is a better weapons form than open hand.
Where either of the forms set in stone nope they where or are strictly something to learn from and I had no problem changing them. The first was for a student to learn some basics, the 2nd a reminder for me to cherish the friendship shown to me. Both can/could be change to fit a certain situation that came along.
I have in the past been asked to create a staff form for a student. (the system we where then studying did not have one) so I did staying within my limited knowledge of the weapon, it's uses, and the students ability. After watching the student perform the form I asked him what he was doing with each move and how that move went to the next and why. listening to his thoughts (which where not necessarily the same as mine) I changed a few things in the form to go better with his thought process and knowledge. Today I have almost no recollection of the sequence of moves in the form, it was for the student to practice and maybe learn basic moves and not anything I was ever going to use.
A few years back I took a form, one of my friends in a different system loved and changed it into something that was more in line with what my system did. I was never going to see that person again and wanted to hold his memory close by doing this and the original form I was unable to do because of physical difference. I have since shown this form to various groups but each time I show it I change it a little depending on what the group dose normally in their study. As for myself I have made the form flow better with a couple small changes and have found out it is a better weapons form than open hand.
Where either of the forms set in stone nope they where or are strictly something to learn from and I had no problem changing them. The first was for a student to learn some basics, the 2nd a reminder for me to cherish the friendship shown to me. Both can/could be change to fit a certain situation that came along.
I don't actually have a problem with a form that's intended for practicing the fundamental body mechanics and structure of a system. I'm not a chunner, but from what I've seen of the forms they seem to do a pretty good job of reinforcing the mechanics and structure of WC. Just don't tell me that (for example) Bil Gee actually teaches you how to do hip throws.
If I did practice an art that had solo kata with all these different interpretations, I think I would prefer to practice the kata differently at different times depending on which interpretation I was putting on it at the moment. If the third step in the movement could be either a block or a throw, then I would perform it with one set of body mechanics when I was viewing it as a block and a different set of body mechanics when I was viewing it as a throw. My movement would match my intent.
From previous discussions with kata practitioners, it seems that most don't do this. They seem to stick with a standard "encoded" movement that they can apparently interpret as a bunch of different applications but which wouldn't actually function literally for most of those applications. I wonder why. It seems like matching movement to intent would be a useful exercise.
Koshiki
Brown Belt
I completely agree with you. Again, I can't speak for the majority, but you're pretty much spot on, at least in terms of my own approach. I'd much prefer to perform application with a partner, but without a partner, if I want to practice the actual motion of an application, I practice the actual motion of the application as it would be applied, rather than as found in the kata. But that's practicing a kata-derived, two person drill by yourself, not practicing the kata.
However, I wouldn't change the original kata as I learned it to suit a particular application; that would defeat the usefulness of the kata, which is for me a tool of exploration and experimentation. Once the kata has a single obvious, explicit application, once the movements are less obscured, it becomes too easy to see one way of doing things, and harder to force yourself to see others. Especially when teaching the kata to newer students. If it has one clear use, why use it to find more?
So yes, matching movement to intent is a useful exercise, and I would presume (maybe?) many of us do that. We just don't then feed that specified movement back into the kata. The kata is a thesaurus, the applications, drills, and solo practice of said drills are the things you write with it's help.
Say I'm writing a poem about an apple. It's red, but "red" is boring, so I open March's Thesaurus Dictionary and find the entry "Rubiform. Red in color." I think "Hah, what a great way to describe my apple!" So, I may talk about the apple being "rubiform" in my poem. I may begin to use the word "rubiform" in conversation, and I may find I like it, or I may find it's too cumbersome and requires too much explanation.
But, even if I decide that talking to people and using the term "rubiform" is going to be a permanent part of my vocabulary, I'm not going to cross out the entry in March's, and replace it with a handwritten, "rubiform. Red like an apple." Now I've changed the meaning, and everyone who looks up Redness-Greeness in my particular copy, will see that "rubiform" pertains to apples, and they'll use it as such, overlooking that it's actually a more general term for redness. I myself might start using rubiform to mean only the redness of apples.
But yeah, I would say it's obvious that if you want to practice posturing and breaking a full nelson, practice posturing and breaking a full nelson, don't practice Bassai Dai.
And that's pretty much what we do.
We sort of do this too. We view our forms, especially the first form, Siu Nim Tau, as something like an alphabet. It gives us basic structures and energies to complete a variety of applications. Structures and energies ...think of them as your consonants and vowels. You can use them to spell out thousands of words, then combine the words into phrases, and ultimately have a conversation, a debate, or even argument, i.e. you can apply these in sparring, or even a fight.
Now as to the bolded part above, I agree completely. You cannot just do the forms in WC and translate the movements into fighting. That's what drills are for. And chi-sau. And sparring. That is where you address specific applications, or as you put it matching movement to intent. IMO This kind of training is absolutely necessary to gain practical skill.
I know instructors who have abandoned forms training and stick to a program of drills and sparring to produce good fighters. Jake's FMA/MMA coach, Martin Torres is one. On the other hand, I don't know of anybody who can build practical martial arts skills from form alone.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I have learnt and practiced both types of forms that had very specifically codified and defined interpretations of the application of movement, and those that are more open to interpretation. I now only practice the latter and not the former.
In my experience, the former were poorly designed forms, and honestly they were unnecessary. When the application is specifically codified, you may as well simply practice the application directly and eliminate the form. I do not believe that the form adds anything that you don't get in a better way from the direct training.
The latter, in my opinion, give benefits that are more difficult to get from direct application training, but it's not a matter of one OR the other, but rathe BOTH have a place in training. For these kinds of forms, the real benefits come from the opportunity to focus on and refine fundamental principles of body movement, according to the driving principles of the system. This is important to practice without a partner, to focus without the disruption that a partner brings. However, direct application is also important as a separate aspect of training, to develop real skill with application, against another person.
But it's never an "either-or" situation. It is always "and".
