Static lineage kata vs. individually adapted kata

[TimoS]

I suppose if you smaller number of kata you practiced, you could always practice two versions of the same kata. One would be your interpretation and the other would be the interpretation that teacher passed to you.

I know e.g. Joen Nakazato sensei taught that you should have sort three versions of the kata, one which you learn exactly as it is taught, one that is your "interpratation" of it and one that is sort of in the middle of those two. I can't remember the naming he gave to those kata versions, but I seem to remember it came from calligraphy.

 

[stone_dragone]

In light of this thread, and having talked about "ideal", just a quick note about how I've actually been doing it! I just had this conversation with the fellow who's running my dojo at home the other day.

When I started under our instructor in the system that he taught us, as taught by his instructor in a karate style named Nahate Goju Ryu. The forms that we learned are a combination of shotokan kata done with Goju philosophy and Goju kata done with shotokan stances. As far as I understood, what we did WAS goju. Period. It was what he was taught and what he taught us, and since we were effective in the ring and on the street, we didn't worry about it.

A few years later I had researched, studied and trained in other places, I came more and more to the realization that 1) We weren't doing Goju Ryu. 2) Our kata weren't "right" because they weren't being done the way other folks were doing them.

Now, having been around a few more years, I have come full circle. While I acknowledge that the way we learned our forms didn't match how they were originally done, they do teach what I want my students to know. Each movement has a direct bunkai that works. I will teach the forms the way my master taught me, and let my students know that there are other ways to do them.

In relation to forms, always ask yourself "What am I doing?" If what you're doing isn't what you're doing, then what are your doing?

 

[Sojobo]

Kata is never static - it should always be "alive" and have the ability to change with every action and situation imo. If kata is not alive it becomes "Igata" which is dead and has little purpose.

The problem is (particularly with us here in the west) very few people truly understand how make kata work (from an educational position - not bunkai) - ie keeping it "alive" and getting it to work for you - whilst maintaining the integrity of the kata and therefore the reason for its creation / evolution in the first place.

This is where a good instructor and the educational process of "Shu-ha-ri" comes into its own as it does with a number of Japanese traditions (not just martial arts). Without this you haven’t a hope of getting from point A to point B in any system with a kata based pedagogy imo.

Furthermore, the value of the individual kata becomes more and more eroded as it is passed from one person to another.

Sojobo

 

[K-man]

Kata is never static - it should always be "alive" and have the ability to change with every action and situation imo. If kata is not alive it becomes "Igata" which is dead and has little purpose.

The problem is (particularly with us here in the west) very few people truly understand how make kata work (from an educational position - not bunkai) - ie keeping it "alive" and getting it to work for you - whilst maintaining the integrity of the kata and therefore the reason for its creation / evolution in the first place.

This is where a good instructor and the educational process of "Shu-ha-ri" comes into its own as it does with a number of Japanese traditions (not just martial arts). Without this you haven’t a hope of getting from point A to point B in any system with a kata based pedagogy imo.

Furthermore, the value of the individual kata becomes more and more eroded as it is passed from one person to another.

Sojobo

I cannot tell a lie. This is lifted straight from Wikipedia (not a Wikileak!!

)

Aikido master Endo Seishiro shihan stated:

"It is known that, when we learn or train in something, we pass through the stages of shu, ha, and ri. These stages are explained as follows. In shu, we repeat the forms and discipline ourselves so that our bodies absorb the forms that our forebearers created. We remain faithful to the forms with no deviation. Next, in the stage of ha, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in ri, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws."
​

So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited. :asian:
​

 

[dancingalone]

So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited. :asian:
​

I agree 100%.

My thought is that you (figuratively) change the kata you should probably pick a new name. If I suddenly decided to add high kicks to Saifa, for example, the kata should no longer be called Saifa. Likewise, the karate shouldn't be termed Okinawan Goju-ryu either.

This seems fair. Informed students will know you are teaching something else, and you'll have an honest opportunity to teach whatever you want.

 

[Victor Smith]

I'm not in favor of changing kata but if an instructor is so inspired I do hope their changes work in their view.

Students are not traning to learn the kata you were taught. The only thing a student is being shaped towards is to break what wicked comes their way.

Of course I came from an environment where my instructors literally shared many different variations on each kata, as did Shimabuku Tatsuo on occassion.

Oftimes the kata changes are very minor in nature, in fact if you took someone from a different tradition they might be hard pressed to see any difference, though those in that tradition feel the opposite.

But change has a very positive purpose. We exist because CHANGE is the reality of the world. In fact the truest change is to take something designed for one thing, change nothing and successfully fit the tool into a very differen attack.

Change to kata is not the end of the world, IMVHO. Not reacting to the reality of change is a more serious problem.

 

[dancingalone]

Students are not traning to learn the kata you were taught. The only thing a student is being shaped towards is to break what wicked comes their way.

Hmm, I'll disagree to an extent. I do tell my students that I am teaching 'traditional' Okinawan karate the way I was taught myself. I've had some students join my dojo expressly for this reason.

We all train for different purposes. Like you I feel self-defense is the highest goal, but I also have a secondary goal of transmitting the karate and kobudo I was taught myself to the best to my ability to a next generation. If I add something new or if I am imparting somewhat of my own spin on things, I'll make it a point to pass that along too that it comes from a different source.

 

[Victor Smith]

Hi Dancing,

Well on Okinawa everything was Okinawan karate and in the prior days there was no record of how anything did anything. There are multiple variations of the kata, such as the published 15 versions of Patsai, and somebody had to changes things. In doing so they didn't lose Okinawan karate (for everything was Okinawan karate) and in earlier days many didn't become instructors until after their instructor's death. Watch the variations between Kyan's students.

It's not impossible the true tradition was everything changes, and change in all Okinawan karate is the only constant?

I don't know. In my case my instructors trained on Okinawa in 60 and 72 and from their studies, direct observations of what was being taught and tracking returning students what they did, ended up with many variations on the kata. I was taught a bit of them.

In turn I could teach many different variations but choose not to. But after 37 years sometimes I begin a kata with one variation and inadvertently end with another, both pure style from what I was taught. I don't teach that way but it still happens.

And there are no rules, though it sometimes would be nice if there were. I really don't pay attention to what others in my 'style' do, I only track from my instructors, but not having been taught there was a right way, instead that you must work to take the way you do it right, I'm less concerned with change occurring. I've had to deal with that from my first day.

Then again I don't bunkai either. I was never taught any 'bunkai' and in turn I can take a movement and work it successfully with dozen's of applications from my own efforts. Bunkai seems to restrictive. If that's the way you were taught, cool, I've just had to follow a different path.

Seems to me if there was a right way, and the instructor didn't document it for everyone's reference, then they created the actual situation, not the instructor following them.

When you train the same people for 20 or 30 years you'll find they get many different paths from you, one as right and pure as the next.

pleasantly,

 

[Makalakumu]

Hi Dancing,

Well on Okinawa everything was Okinawan karate and in the prior days there was no record of how anything did anything. There are multiple variations of the kata, such as the published 15 versions of Patsai, and somebody had to changes things. In doing so they didn't lose Okinawan karate (for everything was Okinawan karate) and in earlier days many didn't become instructors until after their instructor's death. Watch the variations between Kyan's students.

It's not impossible the true tradition was everything changes, and change in all Okinawan karate is the only constant?

I don't know. In my case my instructors trained on Okinawa in 60 and 72 and from their studies, direct observations of what was being taught and tracking returning students what they did, ended up with many variations on the kata. I was taught a bit of them.

In turn I could teach many different variations but choose not to. But after 37 years sometimes I begin a kata with one variation and inadvertently end with another, both pure style from what I was taught. I don't teach that way but it still happens.

And there are no rules, though it sometimes would be nice if there were. I really don't pay attention to what others in my 'style' do, I only track from my instructors, but not having been taught there was a right way, instead that you must work to take the way you do it right, I'm less concerned with change occurring. I've had to deal with that from my first day.

Then again I don't bunkai either. I was never taught any 'bunkai' and in turn I can take a movement and work it successfully with dozen's of applications from my own efforts. Bunkai seems to restrictive. If that's the way you were taught, cool, I've just had to follow a different path.

Seems to me if there was a right way, and the instructor didn't document it for everyone's reference, then they created the actual situation, not the instructor following them.

When you train the same people for 20 or 30 years you'll find they get many different paths from you, one as right and pure as the next.

pleasantly,

This seems to contradict what you said earlier about not changing the kata, Victor.

Incidentally, I like what you are saying here. In the old days, individuals interpreted the kata and the variations naturally appeared. Perhaps the obverse of that statement is that in our days, the concept of style erases the individual?

From what I now, IMVHO, I see all karate as karate. All of the families trace back to a small archipelago off of China. It's remarkable that we get to practice this art the way that we do. No matter what form it takes, we share that binding root. That's really cool.

 

[dancingalone]

Hi Dancing,
Seems to me if there was a right way, and the instructor didn't document it for everyone's reference, then they created the actual situation, not the instructor following them.

When you train the same people for 20 or 30 years you'll find they get many different paths from you, one as right and pure as the next.

pleasantly,

I look at it as trying to keep the same conditions the same as possible. If my teacher is an excellent martial artist and I would like to attempt the same level of skill, it makes sense for me to try to duplicate his process as much as possible, at least in the 'formative' stages of learning. We are different people with different bodies so definitely there is bound to be some changes and variations as I attempt to follow his path and that is fine. The real question is when does that fork in the road occur?

My assumption is that you shouldn't diverge until you've learned and practiced the way your teacher did. Afterwards, you can decided what is best for yourself, and following the same logic, the same should be said of your students. Give them the chance as best as you can to learn what you did.

 

[Sojobo]

I cannot tell a lie. This is lifted straight from Wikipedia (not a Wikileak!! )

So, yes Shu-ha-ri is valid but on a personal basis. The important thing is to pass on to our students what was given to us. To pass on a kata that you have changed, deprives your student of the opportunity to study the kata that you inherited.

That's where the good teacher comes in.

Here is an excellent essay entitled "Teaching and Shu-ha-ri". It is by Takamura Yukio headmaster of the Takamura ha branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu.

In it, he details the pros and cons of teaching within the various different stages of Shu-ha ri. Its a bit wordy but well worth a read.

http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_TeachingShuHaRi.htm

Worth bearing in mind though that Shindo Yoshin-ryu is a Nihon Koryu Bujutsu as opposed to an Okinawan karate.

Maybe the value / importance of Shu-ha-ri within Japanese martial traditions differ to that of Okinawan Karate?

Sojobo

 

[Victor Smith]

Maunakumu.

I don't think it's as much a contradiction as the reality our brief posts cannot share the full experience. My instructors trained in Okinawa (one as a beginner in 59-60, one as a sho-dan in 72). They experiened what Shimabuku Tatsuo offered not I. Isshinryu's founder had to make choices to train US Marines in a very short time, he did not speak English and as I see it I don't do Okinawan karate (I didn't train there) but Karate that originated in Okinawa.

My observations why Okinawan kata change in large part is from the Patsai material, where the embusen remained but the technique selection varied obviously on different answers what was happening.

While I try to observe what small pieces of Okinawan karate exist I am firmly on the side it's for the Okinawan's to define their history, so I just try and observe with less judgment, at what they do show.

My original instructors never tried to define the 'right' kata performance, instead focusing on how to train to make the version(s) you acquired work as efficienlty as possible.

Why did all those Patsai instructors change, why did Kyan change what he taught, why did all of Kyan's students who became instructor not standardize what they saw, What was Shimabuku's reason he taught differently for different studens, or at different times continue to modify what he was teaching? Can't say, and most of the reasons are in the end totally undocumented except for oral histories.

thoughts,

 

[K-man]

That's where the good teacher comes in.

Here is an excellent essay entitled "Teaching and Shu-ha-ri". It is by Takamura Yukio headmaster of the Takamura ha branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu.

In it, he details the pros and cons of teaching within the various different stages of Shu-ha ri. Its a bit wordy but well worth a read.

http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_TeachingShuHaRi.htm

Worth bearing in mind though that Shindo Yoshin-ryu is a Nihon Koryu Bujutsu as opposed to an Okinawan karate.

Maybe the value / importance of Shu-ha-ri within Japanese martial traditions differ to that of Okinawan Karate?

Sojobo

As you state, this is an excellent article. I doubt that it will receive the attention it deserves within this thread so could I ask you to initiate a new thread perhaps entitled Shu-ha-ri so that we could study it further? Thank you for the post.

 

[Sojobo]

As you state, this is an excellent article. I doubt that it will receive the attention it deserves within this thread so could I ask you to initiate a new thread perhaps entitled Shu-ha-ri so that we could study it further? Thank you for the post.

Not really a lot of point in that K-man, as it is entirely appropriate in this thread and pretty much gets to the nub of things imo.

Sojobo

 

[chinto]

ok, (climbs up on his soap box, looks around and screems! ) " THIS NO NEVER CHANGE!!!! "

ok.. now look folks. the old masters were very very good at staying alive in a fight to the death.. ( by the way folks any fight on the street should be considered one today till shown other wise to be. )

you should not change the kata at all. there should be at least 5 techniques and as many bunkai for every technique practacly and maybe more for every move in the kata... you just have to see it. THEY WERE TRYING TO TEACH YOU A HUGE AMOUNT IN A SMALL PACKAGE!! you can play with them, but do not modify how they are taugth. teach them and then if you must teach a modified one after they learn the real one.


Kata is your art. its how its passed down. there are doctrines and things that they teach you about movement and things in there that most dont notice.

 

[Meibukanadian]

As a relative newbie in the martial arts, I personally am hesitant to deviate from the forms set out by those who dedicated their lives to their arts. If I do not understand certain aspects of a kata, I ask those wiser than me, and just work at it myself until some understanding is found.

However, as stated by many of my fellow posters, kata must be a living thing. But I think that its life can be found within the framework that it was created, as long as one looks hard enough. Just because we can't immediately see it, doesn't mean that a given kata isn't very much alive.

 

[Makalakumu]

How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system? They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another. If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata? I think the old masters saw it this way. They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another. They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.

On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques. One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental. A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.

 

[Sojobo]

On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques. One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental. A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.

I understand what you are saying, however on the other hand, perhaps any kata is only as old as the last time you practiced it?

sojobo

 

[TimoS]

How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system? They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another. If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata? I think the old masters saw it this way. They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another. They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.

True, but you have to keep in mind that before they made the changes, they first learned the kata inside and out the way their sensei taught it. It is only after they started teaching on their own that they would make their own mark on the kata. You can be sure that e.g. when Kyan was practising under Matsumura, he was doing the kata exactly as Matsumura taught (on a semi-unrelated note, it has been speculated that since Matsumura was already quite old when Kyan was his student, that the actual teaching would have been carried out by Azato).

 

[Makalakumu]

True, but you have to keep in mind that before they made the changes, they first learned the kata inside and out the way their sensei taught it. It is only after they started teaching on their own that they would make their own mark on the kata. You can be sure that e.g. when Kyan was practising under Matsumura, he was doing the kata exactly as Matsumura taught (on a semi-unrelated note, it has been speculated that since Matsumura was already quite old when Kyan was his student, that the actual teaching would have been carried out by Azato).

I, personally, think that if anyone even thinks about changing a move or altering anything, this is the way to go. You've got to put in the time to really understand what you are doing. This is a great point, IMO.