Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Maybe you should just say, change is sometimes good.
Who gets to change a kata or technique…
- Thread starter Holmejr
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Why not? Windows was developed as an overlay for MS-DOS systems. It wasn't intended to be an OS, but an Operating Environment. So your putative DOS user would be correct.
Change is sometimes good. Certainly not always. Far from it.
Hyoho
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 392
The OP used the word "kata". In Japanese sense there are two types. One is the shape or form of a waza (tried and tested technique). We break down the waza into parts to examine intricate detail to advance in it's practice. The second is a totally made up form which could contain bits of a waza. Nevertheless its "made up" So with this we can change it at will since had little meaning in the first place apart from practice. Anyone who adds or tries to change waza is probably trying to because they could not do the original one. Maybe some offshoot of an original ryu that says, Ah, we do it this way because my teacher did it this way. There is always a grey area and a headmaster does have the intellectual copyright to make certain minor alterations. Its up to us as a new leader to be able to understand ones teachers character from the original waza.
bill miller
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 102
If the basics of the system are followed, and, more importantly understood, other than the common changes, the kata/hyung/form should stay faithful to its' core concept. Physical changes will happen for many reasons, such as body type, and even where you train. If the core concepts remain then I don't feel there is any harm done.
If the change is better than the original, there is no reason to keep the original.
This is the original form. As far as I knew, very few people still practice this original form.
This is the changed form. Please notice the add in "bow-arrow stance back reverse punch" (at 0.27). If a "bow-arrow stance back reverse punch" is missing in the basic training form, the original design was not perfect.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.
But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it? Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work? I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work. I would write my own. I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better. It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
Maybe there is a parallel here…
But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it? Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work? I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work. I would write my own. I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better. It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.
Maybe there is a parallel here…
dvcochran
Grandmaster
I see this from multiple perspectives. From a perspective of experience, I can see value in playing around with forms. With experience, we can discover what works best/better, at least for ourselves. This can and should only come after a person is fully immersed and experienced in the form. This takes time; much of it to remove any preconceived bias a person may have, regardless of where this comes from.
I compare this to what happens after a person graduate's school (grade, college, graduate, etc...) and enters the work world. Reality is usually a mild to very hard slap in the face. Even though they have a lot of knowledge and 'know' a certain skillset (form) they do not yet know how to use it or leverage it to get the most out of it.
A person newer to their training may see forms as a slow, antiquated way to learn. In a streamlined, stripped-down version of training solely focused on the ring (which is rules bound) or bare knuckles pugilism, there is truth in this. But there is equally as much risk in not being able to process this raw information, becoming a 'bad' person with a skillset that can be downright dangerous. This is where the time quotient comes in.
It is different for each person but the time it takes to become fully immersed in a form is time well spent. There is Always something to learn. There is too much narrative that says forms have no application. I cannot speak to all forms because I simply do not know all forms. But when I break down any form that I do know into its constituent parts, I see tons and tons of application. To say this is satisfying is a gross understatement. Learning forms, doing them over and over imprints this knowledge on us.
Time very well spent.
I think a more accurate writing analogy might be editing rather than revising.
Oily Dragon
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,257
- Reaction score
- 1,651
This is a bona fide Hung Ga Kuen disciple and Shuai Jiao competitor freestyling. This is basically half of how I train nowadays, just gliding through a room like this.
It may look easy, it isn't. It takes years of grueling training. But at some point, just like this dude, you will no longer be limited to canonical forms. You will be able to mix it up and move through space like this, and it all has combat potential, not to mention health.
Seen below are elements of Tiger Crane, Five Animal, and even Iron Wire, completely detached from how the sequences are learned. Check out this man's channel for some awesome Chinese wrestling clips and other kung fu nerdery. This is the good stuff.
It may look easy, it isn't. It takes years of grueling training. But at some point, just like this dude, you will no longer be limited to canonical forms. You will be able to mix it up and move through space like this, and it all has combat potential, not to mention health.
Seen below are elements of Tiger Crane, Five Animal, and even Iron Wire, completely detached from how the sequences are learned. Check out this man's channel for some awesome Chinese wrestling clips and other kung fu nerdery. This is the good stuff.
Last edited:
If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.
If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.
An "improved" kata...
If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.
An "improved" kata...
I would view it as a teaching curriculum, as a new teacher you may adopt (or be given) a methodology that you like but as you become more experienced you may find different ways of teaching that particular methodology that work better for you. After 20 years of teaching do you rip up that tweaked model and start over? I assume that is why Goju-Ryu and Isshin-Ryu have two different versions of Seiunchin. A more extreme example is where Isshin-Ryu teaches Seisan as one of the first kata taught and Goju as an advanced kata.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Could be, but the point is, it’s a finished work. I wouldn’t try to alter it. On another level, I can orally tell the story of the Lord of the Rings to my son, reciting from memory. I will definitely not remember every part of it, every scene, every bit of dialog. But I can remember the overall story and I can convey it to him, so now he knows the story, even if abridged. That does not change the story in the sense of making it a different story. It is just abridged. So to the question of How much change to a kata before it is something else entirely? Well, I think there can be a lot of room for that.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
If the point is that there are SOME folks who shouldn't... sure. In the hands of an incompetent, you may have significant harm done, such as with Potato Jesus. I would guess that we all agree that some folks shouldn't mess around.
But this shouldn't suggest that NONE should attempt it, because in the hands of someone competent, the modifications could be as much a masterpiece as the original. Point being... while some shouldn't... there are many who could... possibly even should. So, the question is, who are those people?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
This is exactly what happens, and there is not one thing anyone can do about it. When you learn something... anything... from one person, and then turn around and teach it to another person, it will be different. Maybe not very different, but different nonetheless. Could be one or two little things that you don't even realize you do differently.
And when that person teaches another person, it will be different yet.
The question isn't, IMO, whether one should or shouldn't change kata or technique. Everyone who learns them changes them in ways small and large. Really, this is just an academic discussion over who can or should change things officially. who gets to say, "This is what it was, but from now on, this is what it is."
A: Dear master! Why did you change the jumping kick into a jumping knee strike?
B: People said that CMA doesn't have flying knee. From now on, CMA has "flying knee" because I add it into our CMA system.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Well said.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Abridged = accurate? I cannot agree with that. It would have to be a very, very short story. Something like the Lord of the Rings would be ripe for all kinds of interpretation.
There is just too much depth in forms to be okay with the abridged version. Enough of that going on already.
The ending of the "Chinese one arm sword man against the Japanese blind sword man" was the Chinese one arm sword man killed the Japanese blind sword man. When that movie was shown in Japan, they had to change the ending as the blind Japanese sword man killed the Chinese one arm sword man.
The title used in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China was "The one arm sword man fight against the blind sword man".
The title used in Japan was "The blind sword man defeats the one arm sword man". Please notice the word "defeat" used in that title.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
Hmm. First lets set aside passing on kata for style preservation, where you don't make changes and pass it on as it was received.
From my experience, kata are a sort of mnemonic device for learning. The moves were put into place with multiple meanings from simple block/punch/kick applications to countermoves to standup grappling applications in the movement. The movement itself wasn't just ONE thing. Most of the time when people make changes, it is because they favor a specific application to the movement and adjust the kata to make that application more obvious or more effective and lose out on the other nuanced layers. This is why someone who knows the meaning of the movements can "tweak" or make adjustments to the kata to highlight those applications for further study.
The problem with the above is that certain kata were taught as an individual study to individuals by the teacher and the teacher, who has "full transmission" of the kata would instruct it differently to each person based on their traits (height/temperament etc.) to give that person the full benefit. This was the way some Okinawan karate was done before the advent of "styles". Now, each person takes what was taught to them individually and goes out to teach other people and each person says it is "the right way".
I remember one time in talking to another student who couldn't make an application work for himself so he changed the movements/application to something he liked better. The moves were very similar, the flow was very similar and if you didn't know better it would just seem like that was the way it was supposed to be. The problem was the original move he took out was the only place where this idea/technique was presented in the forms, so anyone who might have learned from him if he became an instructor also would have lost this piece of knowledge and had a gap in their arsenal and personal study of the art.
In my study, I keep the kata the way they were taught to me. I will take pieces and parts and experiment with them in my own study and do make changes while digging deeper. But, when I instruct that kata, it is back to the way it was taught to me. Why? Because I may not know what knowledge I may lose if I change something to fit me, or what a student may lose if I make a change based on what I think is best.
As my instructor has said, "Make it your own....don't make it up on your own."
From my experience, kata are a sort of mnemonic device for learning. The moves were put into place with multiple meanings from simple block/punch/kick applications to countermoves to standup grappling applications in the movement. The movement itself wasn't just ONE thing. Most of the time when people make changes, it is because they favor a specific application to the movement and adjust the kata to make that application more obvious or more effective and lose out on the other nuanced layers. This is why someone who knows the meaning of the movements can "tweak" or make adjustments to the kata to highlight those applications for further study.
The problem with the above is that certain kata were taught as an individual study to individuals by the teacher and the teacher, who has "full transmission" of the kata would instruct it differently to each person based on their traits (height/temperament etc.) to give that person the full benefit. This was the way some Okinawan karate was done before the advent of "styles". Now, each person takes what was taught to them individually and goes out to teach other people and each person says it is "the right way".
I remember one time in talking to another student who couldn't make an application work for himself so he changed the movements/application to something he liked better. The moves were very similar, the flow was very similar and if you didn't know better it would just seem like that was the way it was supposed to be. The problem was the original move he took out was the only place where this idea/technique was presented in the forms, so anyone who might have learned from him if he became an instructor also would have lost this piece of knowledge and had a gap in their arsenal and personal study of the art.
In my study, I keep the kata the way they were taught to me. I will take pieces and parts and experiment with them in my own study and do make changes while digging deeper. But, when I instruct that kata, it is back to the way it was taught to me. Why? Because I may not know what knowledge I may lose if I change something to fit me, or what a student may lose if I make a change based on what I think is best.
As my instructor has said, "Make it your own....don't make it up on your own."
Similar threads
