Who gets to change a kata or technique…

[Bill Mattocks]

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?

I cannot argue with a man who knows everything.

 

[Oily Dragon]

That guy just did 8 times more exercise than most people in the world did today.

12 years ago.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I cannot argue with a man who knows everything.

There is no spoon.

 

[_Simon_]

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?

First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.

In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.

In terms of kata, to me it's a tool for this same exploration. I'm trying very hard to not to sound too abstract or esoteric haha, but fostering a deeper mind-body connection, being immersed deeper in and experiencing the art's principles, and connecting to something far larger than yourself. You don't really 'get' anything in the end. Even the tea doesn't last, nor will the calligraphy piece last forever, same as the kata which I guess is more like music how quickly it's over.

That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product. For me the kata must have a sense of realism and not just aesthetic (otherwise it would be a dance), but there is the opportunity to see it and train it as something deeper.

And yeah I find it more helpful to see kata not as a catalogue or alphabet, but as a particular tool for exploring the principles of the art.

Ah and the last question, I would say the person absolutely needs experience before benefitting. By that I mean practice under a teacher's guidance. If we're looking at practical application, when it works is the standard. In terms of a more 'do' perspective... no idea .

 

[_Simon_]

repeats the "downward block, step in straight punch" 8 times.

Ah but see, that wasn't the form.

Starting is the ability to push out off the right foot to the left into the block. Not only that but the ability to stop your body under your control into the stance. Then driving forward with your bodyweight behind the punch, and in a big sense learning to triangulate and focus that forward intention of driven power without letting it disperse in other directions. The 180° turn into the block involves quite a bit of body control. Blocking off the opposite side/stance here too, along with the punch.

Another left into the middle line, three punches you're working to drive into and keeping them accurately placed one after the other. The 270° turn here is a whole other level of intricate body control. It's here the form repeats the previous, so it's only really repeating things twice under varying circumstances and differing levels of skill developed.

This is the issue with people looking at a form on the surface level, deciding they think it's too repetitive and thinking it should be changed. For a beginner's level form, there is a LOT to it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Your responses seem circular to me, Bill. I'm trying to understand what it is I'm missing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

I see your point, and mostly agree. But there is another view on this: if each of the "downward block, step in punch" is sandwiched between a different pair of techniques, then perhaps the form is focused around how to set up and transition from that sequence. So changing one of them would lose one set-up and one recovery into another technique. Assuming, of course, that's how the kata is used.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.

In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.

In terms of kata, to me it's a tool for this same exploration. I'm trying very hard to not to sound too abstract or esoteric haha, but fostering a deeper mind-body connection, being immersed deeper in and experiencing the art's principles, and connecting to something far larger than yourself. You don't really 'get' anything in the end. Even the tea doesn't last, nor will the calligraphy piece last forever, same as the kata which I guess is more like music how quickly it's over.

That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product. For me the kata must have a sense of realism and not just aesthetic (otherwise it would be a dance), but there is the opportunity to see it and train it as something deeper.

And yeah I find it more helpful to see kata not as a catalogue or alphabet, but as a particular tool for exploring the principles of the art.

Ah and the last question, I would say the person absolutely needs experience before benefitting. By that I mean practice under a teacher's guidance. If we're looking at practical application, when it works is the standard. In terms of a more 'do' perspective... no idea .

I do think this is part of the common disconnect between some folks here. For those with a "do" focus (whether or not the art ends with a "do"), the process and engagement are as important as the techniques - perhaps moreso. And many of the gains an individual focuses on are non combat-oriented, even if the training is. And there are as many different approaches to this as there are instructors teaching...and probably as many as there are students.

 

[dvcochran]

First up I don't really have an answer regarding who truly understands, or how does one, understand a kata.

In regards to the 'do' arts, the purpose isn't really about an end product. They are very much process oriented and immersive in an experiential sense as to what they entail. Tea ceremony or calligraphy isn't really about getting the perfect cup of tea, nor a nice picture afterwards. The end product is more a tail end 'sign' of the quality of engagement and sincere presence you held throughout the process.

In terms of kata, to me it's a tool for this same exploration. I'm trying very hard to not to sound too abstract or esoteric haha, but fostering a deeper mind-body connection, being immersed deeper in and experiencing the art's principles, and connecting to something far larger than yourself. You don't really 'get' anything in the end. Even the tea doesn't last, nor will the calligraphy piece last forever, same as the kata which I guess is more like music how quickly it's over.

That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product. For me the kata must have a sense of realism and not just aesthetic (otherwise it would be a dance), but there is the opportunity to see it and train it as something deeper.

And yeah I find it more helpful to see kata not as a catalogue or alphabet, but as a particular tool for exploring the principles of the art.

Ah and the last question, I would say the person absolutely needs experience before benefitting. By that I mean practice under a teacher's guidance. If we're looking at practical application, when it works is the standard. In terms of a more 'do' perspective... no idea .

That is deep. I like it.

That's probably where it gets confusing actually, the only real disconnect is when one camp is saying it's purely for the above, and the other camp saying it's purely practical, for self defense and has an end product.

The only thing I might change is to say 'by-product' instead of 'end-product'.

None-the-less, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Hyoho]

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.

View attachment 27894

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?
View attachment 27895

It seems to me that some seem to have a rather vague idea of what some kata can be all about. If its a classical sword art there really is no messing around. For sure you can't change anything. The person performing uchidachi strikes/cuts an opponent. The other (shidachi) responds in avoidance/attack or avoids. For the purpose of training we can do kata. To break things down and mainly slow them down and avoid injury. For embu there is no more kata. Uchidachi will try and put Shidachi in hospital with cuts that stop a centimeter from the floor. No protective equipment is worn.

 

[Steve]

It seems to me that some seem to have a rather vague idea of what some kata can be all about. If its a classical sword art there really is no messing around. For sure you can't change anything. The person performing uchidachi strikes/cuts an opponent. The other (shidachi) responds in avoidance/attack or avoids. For the purpose of training we can do kata. To break things down and mainly slow them down and avoid injury. For embu there is no more kata. Uchidachi will try and put Shidachi in hospital with cuts that stop a centimeter from the floor. No protective equipment is worn.

Isn't it implicit that folks who would modify a kata are competent? And if we accept that as a given, can we not trust that they will only modify a kata in a way that is safe, if they choose to modify it at all?

 

[Steve]

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?

Coming back to the OP to remind myself what the original questions are?

1. 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?
2. Is it ever considered corruption or is it just evolution?
3. Can only GM Alcuizar change Eskrido de Alcuizar or Yip Man change WC or GM Jung Oh Hwang change HD?
4. We don’t do katas in our art, but when you change a kata is it still that kata?

Reading through the thread, I think the only question that has been really answered is number two, and that answer seems to be, "Yes, sometimes... it depends."

 

[dvcochran]

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.

I will likely fail but will try to add to yours and Steve's points.
I feel comparing martial arts kata training to public servant training is not apples to apples. The intent (whether old or newer kata) is very different, although there are many complimentary, integral components. However, this is comparing an industry with no rules or regulations against an industry that is strictly regulated, measured, has heavy standards, and is very, very public.
I do like the simulator analogy for explanation and agree that many, many folks training in the MA's never get out of the simulator. But I surely hope these are not the folks thinking they can change a form, at least on a conscious level. Done out of ignorance, by accident? Definitely, and done all the time. But this is not with the intent to make a permanent change. I hope.

I feel I get what your Sensei saw when you say "he didn't like the way martial arts was headed". And I respect the willingness and awareness to walk away. It surely is a different season for all martial arts. By in large, everything has changed.
I feel a lot of this began when large scale competition was introduced into the masses. To me, this differs greatly from one-on-one pressure testing and such. As soon as things became rules-bound everything changed.
It is nearly impossible to translate the same intent your Sensei had/has to people who have zero perception of a kill or be killed environment.
I do strongly feel the mindset you mentioned (warrior's spirit) is applicable for today but the perception of the instinct has broadened. The spirit can be processed and used in many, many different applications. "killing the deal", "killing it" in sports, "kill the messenger", etc... In a word, 'drive'.
It gets complicated for me. From my competition career and LEO days, I am certain I understand the mental process. And to me, a tangential overlap is my lifetime of hunting. Killing is not out of bounds to me.

Fully understanding the intent and results is the most complicated part of the whole thing to me.
As much as I try to explain the potential of some movements in our forms/hyungs/poomsae I also know there are many folks that will never get it, nor have any desire to get it. Another thing that gets harder and harder as an instructor.

 

[punisher73]

I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.

I would agree about a TEACHER that doesn't understand that. In this case, I said STUDENT. But, I agree if that student was never corrected or learned then it would be lost to anyone who only studied with that person.

My instructor has a phrase along the lines that until you have sweated a gallon of sweat on a technique, then you don't even begin to understand it. I think that many times the changes are done by people who haven't done their work into the technique and really owning it.

 

[dvcochran]

In cases where another teacher of the system has the missing knowledge, it might be better to wait and learn directly from that teacher rather than practicing an empty movement which you don't understand. Reason being - when a teacher and student don't understand a given movement then it can start to diverge from its functional form. If you go through multiple generations of instructors then this becomes more and more likely.

I'll give a specific example. @wab25 likes to cite the example of a movement in many karate forms which involves stepping forward with a "down block." He believes this movement is actually supposed to represent a certain type of takedown. I find this quite plausible. It certainly would be much more functional than the idea of stepping forward to block a kick which would have been out of range if you hadn't stepped forward.

However - if this is indeed the original intended meaning of the movement in the kata, then the overwhelming majority of karateka are performing the movement incorrectly when they practice. I'm familiar with the takedown in question and the body mechanics necessary to make it work are drastically different from the way most people perform the stepping "down block" in their kata. If you learn the kata the way most people practice it, then I don't think it will give you any advantage in learning the takedown later.

Now if you learned the takedown first and practiced it to functionality with a partner and then learned the kata using the correct body mechanics for the takedown, then I think you could get some practical use out of drilling that step of the kata when you didn't have a training partner handy.

I was taught that all forms start with a defensive move, for a purpose. Since the movement you mentioned (low block) is the first move in many, many first forms of different styles, I wonder if the oral representation you mention has something to do with this. Versus your interpretation of a higher value yet offensive movement.
Just a thought.

 

[Flying Crane]

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?

Practice/training really is about repetition, though. Repetition is how skills improve. What is wrong with a kata that has repetition?

I believe this example is a TKD form, not karate.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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.

I just wanted to say that for some arts we're never going to do better than simulator training, and that's okay.

I'm thinking specifically of sword arts and other obsolete historical deadly weapons. Swords aren't really a factor on the modern battlefield so you can't get that real life experience in the military. Dueling with real swords is generally illegal and by modern standards immoral, so you can't get real life sword fighting experience by going out and doing challenge matches. You can spar and compete under various rulesets with blunt swords and safety measure, but that will always be at best a flawed simulation of the real thing. Fortunately those of us who practice sword arts are unlikely to ever have to face a sword wielding opponent in a real life-or-death fight.

However the fact that our training is inherently a flawed simulation doesn't mean that it is just fantasy role playing. Getting back to your simulator analogy, imagine that you are on a plane flight and both the pilot and co-pilot keel over from simultaneous heart attacks. It turns out that one of the passengers is a pilot trainee who has memorized the operating manual for the plane you are on and has also logged hundreds of hours on a simulator, but has never yet actually flown the plane in real life. Who would you rather try landing the plane, the trainee or a kid who has spent a bunch of time piloting X-wings in a Star Wars video game? Obviously I would rather have an experienced pilot, but I think the guy who has studied the operating manual and spent time in the simulator has a decent chance of maybe getting us on the ground safely.

 

[wab25]

Ah but see, that wasn't the form.

Starting is the ability to push out off the right foot to the left into the block. Not only that but the ability to stop your body under your control into the stance. Then driving forward with your bodyweight behind the punch, and in a big sense learning to triangulate and focus that forward intention of driven power without letting it disperse in other directions. The 180° turn into the block involves quite a bit of body control. Blocking off the opposite side/stance here too, along with the punch.

Another left into the middle line, three punches you're working to drive into and keeping them accurately placed one after the other. The 270° turn here is a whole other level of intricate body control. It's here the form repeats the previous, so it's only really repeating things twice under varying circumstances and differing levels of skill developed.

This is the issue with people looking at a form on the surface level, deciding they think it's too repetitive and thinking it should be changed. For a beginner's level form, there is a LOT to it.

People forget that the stuff that happens between the down block and the punch and also the stuff between the punch and the next down block, are also techniques and skills and things worthy of study.

 

[Ji Yuu]

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?

Kata is a training tool. You should reach a level to where you can adapt it. As long as you adapt it properly, with correct technique and theory, etc. If it makes sense with Bunkai, then it's probably ok.

 

[Steve]

I just wanted to say that for some arts we're never going to do better than simulator training, and that's okay.

I'm thinking specifically of sword arts and other obsolete historical deadly weapons. Swords aren't really a factor on the modern battlefield so you can't get that real life experience in the military. Dueling with real swords is generally illegal and by modern standards immoral, so you can't get real life sword fighting experience by going out and doing challenge matches. You can spar and compete under various rulesets with blunt swords and safety measure, but that will always be at best a flawed simulation of the real thing. Fortunately those of us who practice sword arts are unlikely to ever have to face a sword wielding opponent in a real life-or-death fight.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with this, as long as folks don't get unrealistic expectations about their own skill level. I would be very skeptical of any claims that modern folks are as skilled as people who did historically use the weapons. And, conversely, if I had a practical need to use a sword and was looking at two instructors of similar backgrounds, where one has real world experience and the other doesn't, I know whom I would choose.

However the fact that our training is inherently a flawed simulation doesn't mean that it is just fantasy role playing. Getting back to your simulator analogy, imagine that you are on a plane flight and both the pilot and co-pilot keel over from simultaneous heart attacks. It turns out that one of the passengers is a pilot trainee who has memorized the operating manual for the plane you are on and has also logged hundreds of hours on a simulator, but has never yet actually flown the plane in real life. Who would you rather try landing the plane, the trainee or a kid who has spent a bunch of time piloting X-wings in a Star Wars video game? Obviously I would rather have an experienced pilot, but I think the guy who has studied the operating manual and spent time in the simulator has a decent chance of maybe getting us on the ground safely.

Maybe. One never knows, and that's the point. What I do know is that I would prefer, if given the choice, to not wait until there is a crisis to discover that my simulator training was flawed and that my instructor, despite his insistence to the contrary (and perhaps encyclopedic knowledge of the subject), really didn't know what he was talking about.

I honestly don't think my position on this is all that controversial, but I believe it causes some dissonance because folks are emotionally invested in not just the fun, positive, esoteric benefits of their art, but also that they are absolutely learning (and teaching) practical skills that will benefit them in a crisis.