Who gets to change a kata or technique…

[Bill Mattocks]

This is why one will need to have a good reason to change a form.

Lian Bu Quan was created as the 1st beginner level training form for The Central Guoshu Institute back in 1928. Since the whole form didn't even have one back reverse punch, GM Han Ching-Tang changed a double palms strike into a back reverse punch (at 0.43 in the following clip). So change had been done by my long fist teacher's teacher.

My long fist teacher's Lian Bu Chuan.

My long fist brother's Lian Bu Chuan.

Ok

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I used to love doing Isshinryu's Kusanku kata with the flying crescent, jump kicks and four kneeling moves. But, like you and most other senior citizens, it's hard for me to get up gracefully after all the other physical demands this kata has.

Now, I envy other styles' version of Kusanku as they merely drop into a cat stance, rather than all the way down to a kneel. However, without the kneel, the bunkai drastically changes - The single leg takedowns disappear (shown as a kneeling elbow). If you look at the Bubishi illustrations, one of the big surprises for me was the stress on such moves in karate's early years.

I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.

Happens to all of us. It's easy to convince ourselves that we're not really that old yet!

 

[isshinryuronin]

I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.

I was known (40 years ago) for a very high jumping spinning crescent kick (as in Kusanku). As I got older, when practicing, I did the lazy man's version, just simulating the airborne part. A few years ago I tried it for real (the first time in about 20 years) and to my amazement, I felt like I got at least 4, maybe 5 feet of air under me, kicking head height, and nailed the spiderman-like landing.

Then, my reality check - it was recorded. I was amazed again - I actually got a good 20 inches off the ground and kicked waist level! While I didn't hurt myself and did stick the landing, I realized my legs were no where close to where they used to be. So, I've been doing lunges and squats and they have helped, a little.

I learned, like you seemed to have done, was to not take your physical abilities for granted and assume you can perform like your younger self. (our self-perception is conveniently flattering) You need to objectively test your true abilities as you age. While this may be humiliating, (denial is so much more comforting) it's better than biting off more than you can chew and risk injury in practice or actual combat.

 

[skribs]

I've learned and practice the originals as well as the minor variants, because I'm a giant nerd and find the differences interesting. I teach the variants because they are the standard as set by our Kwanjangnim. I'm happy to teach the originals to any student interested, just as I will teach the Chang Hon forms to interested students. But the standard is not mine to set.

Maybe some time I'll get a chance to show you our "minor" variations.

 

[dvcochran]

I managed to demonstrate how not to land after a nidangeri 2 weeks ago. After losing a ton of weight, I was thinking I could do it. I was mistaken.

I imagine most of us old(er) folks have been there in some form or fashion. A humbling, usually funny, and hopefully not too painful experience.

 

[hoshin1600]

In the early days I thought forms shouldn't change. I was upset when the head of the style I was doing at the time, changed a kick because it was thought the original was too difficult for some people to do. I felt forms were sacred. At the peak of my development and training I was able to train with many senior masters and even the grandson of the founder. Each did the same form but with totally different interpretations and often blatant differences. From that I learned forms are not sacred, nor is there a single right way to do things. (there however wrong ways to do things). My conversations with the top masters who set organizational standards, allowed me to understand that without a unifying standard, the organization itself cannot exist, but that is a separate issue from the form itself and how it should or could be done. Changing a kick in a form is nothing more than a kick. Changing a kick in a form that is practiced by thousands within an organization is detrimental to the style. Adherence to the accepted standard is what makes the group.
In my experience I have only met a small handful of people who really understood the meaning behind the forms. With good kata the experience and application comes first and the solo form practice comes after. What I see most is people doing forms for the sake of doing forms. Like dance the meaning is found in the precision of the action. This is Shimejurusan kata. The purpose is self perfection through movement. with this type of performance, the application is irrelevant. This is why most people are unsure about what the actions really mean in application. Could be this , or could be that. It's all arbitrary. As if you were learning to dance the Tango and some instructors want your hand equal with your shoulder and others slightly below it.
In contrast when the form is application based what is important is getting the job done. Esthetics don't matter that much. It's a matter of repetition and having the tool handy when needed. Forms are performing the needed task of repetition and mindfulness. If the application is forgotten to history or no longer relevant why practice it? Change it to something functional. That of course holds the presupposition that you know through experience, what is and what is not functional.
Changing the form also has greater implications if the intended audience is more than just yourself. The change would need to work across time and across a multitude of different people with different body types and limitations.

My own personal philosophy is Shu, Ha, Ri.
Shu, block type print and standard performance
Ha, cursive writing with your own flavor but still recognizable.
Ri, your own personal signature developed over time and experience, no limits on movement or interpretation.
But when teaching, go back to Shu, the standard.

I didn't proof read this like I usually do. I hope it's legible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nicely said.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Maybe some time I'll get a chance to show you our "minor" variations.

That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.

 

[skribs]

That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.

The one I think is really interesting is Palgwe #1, because it's the one that simultaneously has the most similarities and the most differences. Not just at my school. I've looked up several videos, and I've seen:

1. Sometimes there is a back stance for every block, sometimes just the double-knife-hand blocks (and the rest are front stance), sometimes a mix
2. Some steps are inside blocks in one school and outside blocks in another
3. Other minor changes that I can't remember off-hand because this was several years ago that I looked them up

I think in the case of #1, it's because of preference (for example, always turning into a back stance, or always blocking in back stance). In the case of #2, it's because an inside block and outside block look very similar in a still image.

 

[dvcochran]

In the early days I thought forms shouldn't change. I was upset when the head of the style I was doing at the time, changed a kick because it was thought the original was too difficult for some people to do. I felt forms were sacred. At the peak of my development and training I was able to train with many senior masters and even the grandson of the founder. Each did the same form but with totally different interpretations and often blatant differences. From that I learned forms are not sacred, nor is there a single right way to do things. (there however wrong ways to do things). My conversations with the top masters who set organizational standards, allowed me to understand that without a unifying standard, the organization itself cannot exist, but that is a separate issue from the form itself and how it should or could be done. Changing a kick in a form is nothing more than a kick. Changing a kick in a form that is practiced by thousands within an organization is detrimental to the style. Adherence to the accepted standard is what makes the group.
In my experience I have only met a small handful of people who really understood the meaning behind the forms. With good kata the experience and application comes first and the solo form practice comes after. What I see most is people doing forms for the sake of doing forms. Like dance the meaning is found in the precision of the action. This is Shimejurusan kata. The purpose is self perfection through movement. with this type of performance, the application is irrelevant. This is why most people are unsure about what the actions really mean in application. Could be this , or could be that. It's all arbitrary. As if you were learning to dance the Tango and some instructors want your hand equal with your shoulder and others slightly below it.
In contrast when the form is application based what is important is getting the job done. Esthetics don't matter that much. It's a matter of repetition and having the tool handy when needed. Forms are performing the needed task of repetition and mindfulness. If the application is forgotten to history or no longer relevant why practice it? Change it to something functional. That of course holds the presupposition that you know through experience, what is and what is not functional.
Changing the form also has greater implications if the intended audience is more than just yourself. The change would need to work across time and across a multitude of different people with different body types and limitations.

My own personal philosophy is Shu, Ha, Ri.
Shu, block type print and standard performance
Ha, cursive writing with your own flavor but still recognizable.
Ri, your own personal signature developed over time and experience, no limits on movement or interpretation.
But when teaching, go back to Shu, the standard.

I didn't proof read this like I usually do. I hope it's legible.

Very well said.
Nail on the head.

 

[rick_tsdmdk]

For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway. What does it matter if the moves are changed? Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.

 

[kfman]

I was reading a post “Understanding the TSD Seisan and Changes”. There was post there about changing a kata to fit ones needs and I started thinking, who gets to change a particular arts katas or techniques? Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution? Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD? We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata? Folks might say it is “in essence”, but is that true? What’s your take?

I suggest teaching a form or kata as it was originally taught, and then show interpretations of techniques.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway. What does it matter if the moves are changed? Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.

Some people change the form just because they have fighting experience. They believe the change is more suitable for fighting.

At 0.06, he did a horizontal block before his horizontal palm strike.

At 0.03, he did a upward block before his 45 degree downward palm strike.

- Which one is more suitable to fighting?
- Which one is the original, and which one is the changed?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

For 99% of practitioners, kata and forms are just random techniques anyway. What does it matter if the moves are changed? Very few have any understanding of combat and most teachers have never been in a fight or in the ring.

I'm sorry if that's the kind of training you've received.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If we compare the following 2 clips, it's very difficult to tell which one is the original form, and which one is the changed form.

At 0.29 before he finished the form, he did a double palms strike. That double palms strike was the original move.

At 0.28 before he finished the form, he did a back reverse punch. This back reverse punch was the change made by my long fist teacher's teacher.

 

[skribs]

That would be nice. I'd then have to learn your versions as well. When there are form variants, I try to figure out why the change was made and understand it. Was it a matter of flow, or diversity of techniques? Was it just that someone didn't like the original form? I find practicing the modified versions helps me understand the thought process behind the changes.

Here's one I've come across as I'm developing my own curriculum.

I was taught the inside block as chambered from your ear, but in the Taegeuk forms your hand is chambered out away from your shoulder. In most cases, I want to start with the Taegeuk way of doing things, even if I like the Palgwe style better (when in Rome). However, this is one that I may start with the Palgwe style. I would then go back at an intermediate belt, when I start to teach variations of the techniques, and correct the Taegeuk form.

I figure it's just one detail, and by the time they get black belt, they'd have spent more time knowing it than not.

It's something I'm 50/50 on. I feel like chambering by the ear is easier when using the lead hand, which most of the inside blocks in the Taegeuks are with the other hand.

 

[dvcochran]

Here's one I've come across as I'm developing my own curriculum.

I was taught the inside block as chambered from your ear, but in the Taegeuk forms your hand is chambered out away from your shoulder. In most cases, I want to start with the Taegeuk way of doing things, even if I like the Palgwe style better (when in Rome). However, this is one that I may start with the Palgwe style. I would then go back at an intermediate belt, when I start to teach variations of the techniques, and correct the Taegeuk form.

I figure it's just one detail, and by the time they get black belt, they'd have spent more time knowing it than not.

It's something I'm 50/50 on. I feel like chambering by the ear is easier when using the lead hand, which most of the inside blocks in the Taegeuks are with the other hand.

This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here.

How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block?
What does the body do?
What does the blocking arm do?
What path and trajectory does the blocking arm take?
Are the two mechanics (arm/body) different?
What does the ready hand do? What path does it take?
At what direction is the ending force of the directed?
Can there be an offensive quality to a high bloc?

These are details seldom ingested by color belts, and sadly, even 1st Dan's at many schools. So, I am really trying get into the minutia of the block.

If this post does not generate well, I will start a new thread.

 

[isshinryuronin]

This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here.

How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block?
What does the body do?
What does the blocking arm do?
What path and trajectory does the blocking arm take?
Are the two mechanics (arm/body) different?
What does the ready hand do? What path does it take?
At what direction is the ending force of the directed?
Can there be an offensive quality to a high bloc?

These are details seldom ingested by color belts, and sadly, even 1st Dan's at many schools. So, I am really trying get into the minutia of the block.

If this post does not generate well, I will start a new thread.

Maybe the main question should be, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVE?

Is it simply to keep you from getting hit in the head and purely a defensive move? Or is it, as you ask at the end, an offensive move, capable of not only this, but causing pain to the attacking limb and getting the attacker off balance and out of position, while putting you in optimum position for a counter strike?

This will affect the answers to all the other questions you pose. Understanding the purpose and capabilities of the technique is key to how to execute it most effectively.

 

[skribs]

This akin to a conversation I have been having with several BB's at one school. I have considered starting a new thread about it but will start here.

How do describe the detailed mechanics of a high block?
What does the body do?
What does the blocking arm do?
What path and trajectory does the blocking arm take?
Are the two mechanics (arm/body) different?
What does the ready hand do? What path does it take?
At what direction is the ending force of the directed?
Can there be an offensive quality to a high bloc?

These are details seldom ingested by color belts, and sadly, even 1st Dan's at many schools. So, I am really trying get into the minutia of the block.

If this post does not generate well, I will start a new thread.

Here is the plan I have in my curriculum:

1. White belt learns where the block starts and where it goes. They learn the general path and trajectory. This will be reinforced by an instructor with a foam blocker - if they don't follow the proper path, they get a big block of foam to the face (at low velocity).
2. Yellow belt learns the details of how to chamber so you can get the rotation at the end. Oh, and the rotation at the end.
3. Green belt learns the exact details of the execution, and and the "why" for those details.
4. Blue belts are there. (As far as high blocks are concerned).
5. Red belts really hone in on the details, and are expected to be pretty accurate with the basic white belt techniques. I do anticipate some slop in the blue and red belt techniques.

I plan to execute blocks during the test, in which I will look for the details appropriate to the belt level. I will also ask these sorts of questions to the red and black belt testers. Not the exact questions you're asking, but the general spirit of the questions.