Who gets to change a kata or technique…

[Bill Mattocks]

I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?

Only in the sense of passing on a curriculum which is no longer that which was taught to you.

Say I learn kata A with taught meaning of B, but I don't care for that and change the kata to C and the meaning to D. Fine. But if I am an instructor, my students will think the style contains kata B with meaning D, and kata A is lost. Is it then the same style? Is the kata still named whatever it was originally?

 

[skribs]

That's why bunkai has different levels. What looks like a middle body block and a punch is exactly that. The question is what else it could be, for those interested in pursuing it. The information is there, waiting to be explored, unless one either isn't interested, can't figure out how to make it work, or changes it to fit their understanding of the application instead.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with not caring to take it beyond the surface level. I find it mighty fascinating, personally. It's not about how complicated it needs to be to me. It's about how interesting it can be.

In my opinion, lots of the techniques in the forms don't even make sense at the surface level.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean to you? We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms. How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?

Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine. Or alternatively, when folks talk about truly understanding forms, they have in mind someone who has extensive experience outside of the forms... I'm sure there are some folks out there with experience.

You're correct that there are a number of ways to define "understaning a kata". I don't think it needs to include fight experience, but it could.

My response a reference to someone else earlier referring to kata being difficult to understand (as in, if you think you should change it, you don't understand it). To me, "understanding a kata" is simply understanding what the moves are (the intent) and the foundation for those movements. I don't think that requires fight experience, but it would certainly help. If a judoka can throw a resisting opponent during randori, they likely understand the basic foundation of the throw they are using, whether they've ever used that in a fight ("on the street" or in competition) or not.

I expect there are others who'd define "understanding" differently, and I'd hold my statement as true from that perspective, as well: if you don't understand the kata (by your own definition), you probably aren't ready to teach it to others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm sure some do. I don't know who those people are. I'll bet they don't advertise much, though. Just a thought.

If there are few who understand them, that leads me to two questions:

1. Why aren't they advertising that knowedge, so others can find them to gain that understanding?
2. How can those kata possibly be passed along with any efficacy by people who don't understand them?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Only in the sense of passing on a curriculum which is no longer that which was taught to you.

Say I learn kata A with taught meaning of B, but I don't care for that and change the kata to C and the meaning to D. Fine. But if I am an instructor, my students will think the style contains kata B with meaning D, and kata A is lost. Is it then the same style? Is the kata still named whatever it was originally?

If kata can never be changed, and kata helps define a style, doesn't that doom the style to never being able to progress as things are understood better? Does a single movement change really make it no longer the same art?

 

[seasoned]

When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean?

When we first learn a kata it would appear it is made up of, punch, block, kick, stance and a pattern of foot movement that is unique to each kata as in, turns, stepping in different directions and moving forward or back. As a new student this will suffice and lead into sparring and various drills simulating fighting experiences. The above is the basic structure of a mid 1950s Okinawan GoJu dojo.
This is only the surface of this art...........if this is all you learned you could fair well with your everyday street fighter.
What is yet to come as you approach black belt is the crux of your learning. One small example is, you learn that all blocks are also strikes and all strikes and blocks lead into throws and takedowns....

We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms. How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?

Law enforcement and military begin their training on simulators

Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine.

Traditional "old" kata are about fighting..
Side note: Mid 50s dojo had no sparring gear at all......block or get hit.

 

[Steve]

You're correct that there are a number of ways to define "understaning a kata". I don't think it needs to include fight experience, but it could.

My response a reference to someone else earlier referring to kata being difficult to understand (as in, if you think you should change it, you don't understand it). To me, "understanding a kata" is simply understanding what the moves are (the intent) and the foundation for those movements. I don't think that requires fight experience, but it would certainly help. If a judoka can throw a resisting opponent during randori, they likely understand the basic foundation of the throw they are using, whether they've ever used that in a fight ("on the street" or in competition) or not.

I expect there are others who'd define "understanding" differently, and I'd hold my statement as true from that perspective, as well: if you don't understand the kata (by your own definition), you probably aren't ready to teach it to others.

Fair enough. It gets confusing when folks refer to other things, like tea ceremonies, calligraphy, etc. This makes sense, but in those efforts, in addition to the esoteric benefits of the activity, you also get a cup of tea, or a work of art. And the folks who pursue these esoteric benefits are, I presume, experienced in the standards involved. So, in the pursuit of understanding kata, what is the product? If a person has no experience, how can they benefit?

I'm not judging. This just seems like a real disconnect to me. Tai Chi, to me, seems reasonable and predictable. The focus of the style (for many) has become something other than fighting prowess. So, the style has evolved. Folks who do tai chi don't generally claim to be learning to fight, and so everything is internally and externally consistent. At this point, then, should someone allege that they CAN use their tai chi skills to fight, a reasonable person would be skeptical.

It's the same with some other styles, and in particular, when some individuals involved are admittedly inexperienced. Are they experts in the form? Maybe... probably. Does that mean they are experts in how their efforts will translate to another context? Errr.... I think it's reasonable to be skeptical.

 

[Steve]

When we first learn a kata it would appear it is made up of, punch, block, kick, stance and a pattern of foot movement that is unique to each kata as in, turns, stepping in different directions and moving forward or back. As a new student this will suffice and lead into sparring and various drills simulating fighting experiences. The above is the basic structure of a mid 1950s Okinawan GoJu dojo.
This is only the surface of this art...........if this is all you learned you could fair well with your everyday street fighter.
What is yet to come as you approach black belt is the crux of your learning. One small example is, you learn that all blocks are also strikes and all strikes and blocks lead into throws and takedowns....

Law enforcement and military begin their training on simulators

Well, i don't want to beat a dead horse. I've commented on this a lot. Suffice to say, LEO and military begin their training on simulators, but don't stay there. Add to this all the stuff I've written on context, transfer of learning, etc. Simply put, cops know what cops know based on what cops do. They don't have the same experience as a bouncer, though there is a lot of overlap... and they don't know all of the same things that other folks know. Pilots learn on simulators, but don't stay there. Boxers learn to box in the gym, but don't stay there.

A lot of martial artists start in the simulator and stay there. Not all.

So, in the context of this thread, is it possible for one of these martial artists to "understand kata"?

Traditional "old" kata are about fighting..
Side note: Mid 50s dojo had no sparring gear at all......block or get hit.

Sounds fun.

 

[seasoned]

Well, i don't want to beat a dead horse. I've commented on this a lot. Suffice to say, LEO and military begin their training on simulators, but don't stay there. Add to this all the stuff I've written on context, transfer of learning, etc. Simply put, cops know what cops know based on what cops do. They don't have the same experience as a bouncer, though there is a lot of overlap... and they don't know all of the same things that other folks know. Pilots learn on simulators, but don't stay there. Boxers learn to box in the gym, but don't stay there.

A lot of martial artists start in the simulator and stay there. Not all.

So, in the context of this thread, is it possible for one of these martial artists to "understand kata"?


Sounds fun.

Rather then break up your post I'll summarize... Yes but far and few in between
Without pinpointing or focusing on the negative, martial arts has become a business. A lot of the older kata meaning has been lost or obscure from sight for various reasons and saved for only the loyalist and trusted students. I belonged to one of these dojo and Sensei decided to close the doors because he didn't like the way martial arts was headed and simple because the day of the warrior had passed......Mind set, (stay in the fight and the will to survive) does not bode well in these more modern times.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If kata can never be changed, and kata helps define a style, doesn't that doom the style to never being able to progress as things are understood better? Does a single movement change really make it no longer the same art?

Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If there are few who understand them, that leads me to two questions:

1. Why aren't they advertising that knowedge, so others can find them to gain that understanding?
2. How can those kata possibly be passed along with any efficacy by people who don't understand them?

1) I presume many do. I also presume many who haven't that knowledge say they do, and believe it to be true.

2) A scribe doesn't need to be able to read the text they are copying.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.

By using your approach, the number of form in a style may increase into a large number.

IMO, if your form has duplicate combo "downward block, punch", to replace one combo with a new technique won't

- lost any old information of the form.
- increase the length of that form.
- increase the number of the forms.

 

[Hyoho]

That’s an overstatement in the extreme. There are a lot of reasons one might change waza. Your statement implies waza is inherently perfect, otherwise we’d have to allow that sometimes the change is just an improvement.

As one highly acclaimed sword master told his students, "If you want to change a waza you will have to kill someone to test it".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe create another kata rather than change an existing one.

This goes back to a prior question: why is it better to start over and create an entirely new kata, rather than make a change? Especially if only one change is intended- why ditch the rest?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

1) I presume many do. I also presume many who haven't that knowledge say they do, and believe it to be true.

2) A scribe doesn't need to be able to read the text they are copying.

I don’t buy the premise that scribing is analogous to learning MA. If I replicate the basic look of a kata, but with improper mechanics, I’m not doing the kata properly. Those mechanics aren’t inherent in the movement, especially not as a beginner will typically reproduce it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As one highly acclaimed sword master told his students, "If you want to change a waza you will have to kill someone to test it".

But that’s not true of most waza, is it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don’t buy the premise that scribing is analogous to learning MA. If I replicate the basic look of a kata, but with improper mechanics, I’m not doing the kata properly. Those mechanics aren’t inherent in the movement, especially not as a beginner will typically reproduce it.

Ok, you don't buy it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This goes back to a prior question: why is it better to start over and create an entirely new kata, rather than make a change? Especially if only one change is intended- why ditch the rest?

I already explained why, so we're just playing games at this point.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By using your approach, the number of form in a style may increase into a large number.

IMO, if your form has duplicate combo "downward block, punch", to replace one combo with a new technique won't

- lost any old information of the form.
- increase the length of that form.
- increase the number of the forms.

As far as you know. Your explanations always assume you know all there is to know. You refuse to accept any other possibility.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

As far as you know. Your explanations always assume you know all there is to know. You refuse to accept any other possibility.

We are discussing what the best other possibility can be.

This Karate basic form repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.

If you just

- change one of the downward block into an upward block (or inside out block, or ...),
- change one of the straight punch into a hook punch (or uppercut, or ...),
- repeat "downward block, step in straight punch" 1 time instead of 8 times,

Will your new changed form be more valuable?

In your sentence, do you really need to repeat "I love you" 8 times?