Evaluating the quality of kata/hyung/etc. performance

[exile]

So I have three questions:

(1) What do you think the criteria for judging forms—kata, hyungs, whatever—in MA competitions actually are?

(2) What do you think those criteria should be?

(3) Do you think there's any reason why different arts should use different criteria for assessing the 'quality' of forms performance? I.e., should an Okinawan kata be judged by different criteria than a WTF hyung? Why (or why not)?

 

[tshadowchaser]

Having judged a few forms in the past I always felt that there where key things to watch for.
Foot placement : was the person stable in their stance or did the foot have the heelof the ground, did the heel or foot slide when it should have been stable
Stance: was the stance solid and consistent or was the back leg bent one time and locked another in the same stance. Was the stance low and deep once then high the next
Concentration: did the competitor hesitate anywhere in the form and did their eyes have that “what the hell comes next” look
Power: If a hard form where the kicks and punches powerful through out the form

Those are a few of the things I look for.

 

[Kacey]

So I have three questions:

(1) What do you think the criteria for judging forms—kata, hyungs, whatever—in MA competitions actually are?

Well, when I judge Ch'ang H'on tuls, I use the following criteria from The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, by Gen. Choi, Hong Hi, as those are the criteria on which our judging is based.

9 Points to be observed while performing patterns:
1) Accuracy. A pattern should begin and end on the same spot.
2) Correct posture and facing should be maintained at all times.
3) The muscles of the body should be tensed and relaxed at the proper moments.
4) A pattern should be performed in rhythmic movements with an absence of stiffness.
5) Moves should accelerate or decelerate, according to the instructions.
6) Each pattern should be perfected before moving on to the next.
7) Students should know the purpose of each movement.
8) Students should perform each movement with realism.
9) Attack and defense techniques should be equally distributed among left and right hands and feet.

(2) What do you think those criteria should be?

In general, patterns should be performed with power, balance, and focus, with good stances, and with consistency - if 2 people are performing patterns, and one is off balance, has no power, no discernable stances, and every move takes a different length of time, chances are I'm going to think the other person is better.

(3) Do you think there's any reason why different arts should use different criteria for assessing the 'quality' of forms performance? I.e., should an Okinawan kata be judged by different criteria than a WTF hyung? Why (or why not)?

Well, the above criteria are my base, but some of them are not applicable to all styles or all situations. #1, accuracy, may not be relevant to the patterns of all styles - while the Ch'ang H'on tuls are designed to start and end on the same spot, not all patterns are created that way. Likewise, any of the criteria which require knowing the pattern well are not going to apply in an open tournament, and care must be taken to not weight the judging in open competition toward the patterns type(s) known best by the judges. So for tournaments run by the YCTA rules, I use the 9 criteria listed above in response to question 1, as those are our rules for judging patterns competition; for open patterns competition, I use the criteria listed above in question 2.

Pattern performance criteria are going to vary from style to style, based on the types of techniques emphasized from the style - but good patterns are differentiated from bad ones by the overall consistency of the performance; as I said above, if the stances are visibly consistent within the pattern, the techniques are performed with balance, focus, and control, and the timing is consistent, the quality of the performance will be visible through the differences in style - and that quality is what should be looked for, rather than adherence to set of criteria that may well not apply across styles, as applying the criteria of style "A" to style "B" generally creates an unfair advantage for the stylists in style "A", even if stylist(s) from style "B" are better.

 

[jks9199]

I'm going to have to differentiate between judging forms within my system and outside, like in an open tournament. There are some points that apply to either. First and foremost -- do they seem to know the form? In other words -- are pauses in appopriate places, for reasonable durations, or are they indications of being lost? Are the stances and steps sure and definite, or fumbling? Are the punches going to the target, or pulling away from it? I look at the focus and "showmanship" (for lack of a better word) of the performer; do I feel like they're fighting -- or just waltzing? I look for lock and strength in appropriate places. I always look for blocks and how they relate to strikes. I do adjust what I look for based on belt level, and age.

If I'm judging in-house, I'm looking for whether the form is demonstrating our principles properly. Additionally, many of our forms are designed to demonstrate or teach some specific principles; if they're doing a form that's demonstrating moving off the line of the attack, blocking, and striking back to the line -- I want them to be off the line, for example. Ironically -- I'm less picky about what strike is being thrown in our forms, so long as it's in the proper direction with proper principles because some of our forms have been taught with different strikes depending on the teacher and time.

If I'm assessing a form from another system -- I'm focusing more on just common fundamentals, like lock and snap. I'm going to look at whether blocks look like they might actually stop something -- and, in so many cases, I'm cases I cringe at the 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and... robotic rhythm of the performance. I'm going to look at their stances and their directions.

 

[exile]

9 Points to be observed while performing patterns:
1) Accuracy. A pattern should begin and end on the same spot.
2) Correct posture and facing should be maintained at all times.
3) The muscles of the body should be tensed and relaxed at the proper moments.
4) A pattern should be performed in rhythmic movements with an absence of stiffness. ​

These points all seem to be about the über-notion control....

5) Moves should accelerate or decelerate, according to the instructions.
6) Each pattern should be perfected before moving on to the next.
7) Students should know the purpose of each movement.
8) Students should perform each movement with realism.
​

...something like knowledge/understanding (including understanding of combat-applicability)?

9) Attack and defense techniques should be equally distributed among left and right hands and feet.​

...and this sound like something related to (ambi)dexterity.

In general, patterns should be performed with power, balance, and focus, with good stances, and with consistency - if 2 people are performing patterns, and one is off balance, has no power, no discernable stances, and every move takes a different length of time, chances are I'm going to think the other person is better.

Pattern performance criteria are going to vary from style to style, based on the types of techniques emphasized from the style - but good patterns are differentiated from bad ones by the overall consistency of the performance; as I said above, if the stances are visibly consistent within the pattern, the techniques are performed with balance, focus, and control, and the timing is consistent, the quality of the performance will be visible through the differences in style - and that quality is what should be looked for, rather than adherence to set of criteria that may well not apply across styles, as applying the criteria of style "A" to style "B" generally creates an unfair advantage for the stylists in style "A", even if stylist(s) from style "B" are better.

Sounds to me like you're looking for the sureness of execution that reflects mastery of physical control, evidence of understanding/awareness that focus represents, and the ability to convey power generation.

And you're not keen on stylistic specificy so much. Here I'm thinking of the way in which karateka execute kata and TKDists execute hyungs, which may well be more or less literal replications of the same kata. The kata Empi, for example, is almost the same, move for move, as the hyung Eunbi (the name is basically a literal borrowing as well). There are different interpretations of what those kicking movements are after the reverse punches, but basically they're the same techs. But they look very different when they're executed: the kata interpretation tends to be much more... syncopated? The movements express compressed intensity of energy alternating with a sense of waiting and deliberateness. The hyung performance is usually done much more evenly, with the same tempo and pace throughout. You don't have to get as exotic as Empi; Taikyoku Shodan and Kicho Il Jang are the same form, but the former seems to be executed much more in the first way I described and the latter much more the second way. My impression is, a karateka judge would penalize a performance along the latter lines, and the same, in reverse, for a TKDist judge.

I'm going to have to differentiate between judging forms within my system and outside, like in an open tournament. There are some points that apply to either. First and foremost -- do they seem to know the form? In other words -- are pauses in appopriate places, for reasonable durations, or are they indications of being lost? Are the stances and steps sure and definite, or fumbling? Are the punches going to the target, or pulling away from it? I look at the focus and "showmanship" (for lack of a better word) of the performer; do I feel like they're fighting -- or just waltzing? I look for lock and strength in appropriate places. I always look for blocks and how they relate to strikes. I do adjust what I look for based on belt level, and age.

So you are also looking for control, knowledge and dexterity, and for combat realism, or a sense at least that these moves could be adapted to a fight, with effective consequences...

If I'm judging in-house, I'm looking for whether the form is demonstrating our principles properly. Additionally, many of our forms are designed to demonstrate or teach some specific principles; if they're doing a form that's demonstrating moving off the line of the attack, blocking, and striking back to the line -- I want them to be off the line, for example. Ironically -- I'm less picky about what strike is being thrown in our forms, so long as it's in the proper direction with proper principles because some of our forms have been taught with different strikes depending on the teacher and time.

Right: someone's punches in one form might be a palm-heel or hammerfist strike when done by someone else. So what you want is the demonstration that the strategic understanding built into the kata is being realized in performance, yes?

If I'm assessing a form from another system -- I'm focusing more on just common fundamentals, like lock and snap. I'm going to look at whether blocks look like they might actually stop something -- and, in so many cases, I'm cases I cringe at the 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and... robotic rhythm of the performance. I'm going to look at their stances and their directions.

Mmmmm, that's very intersting... from what I've seen, a fair amount of TKD judging would use 'rhythmic consistency' where you've used the expression 'robotic'. I think that that may be something basically different in the performance ethos of karate as vs. TKD... ?​

 

[dancingalone]

Mmmmm, that's very intersting... from what I've seen, a fair amount of TKD judging would use 'rhythmic consistency' where you've used the expression 'robotic'. I think that that may be something basically different in the performance ethos of karate as vs. TKD... ?

That's actually my primary complaint with the way TKD forms are performed. Everything seems to be executed on a 1-2 count.

 

[exile]

That's actually my primary complaint with the way TKD forms are performed. Everything seems to be executed on a 1-2 count.

When did that start? Does anyone know where it comes from? It's not just the Okinawan/Japanese forms which don't share that uniform tempo thing—the CMA hsings also show a fair amount of variation in pacing.

 

[dancingalone]

When did that start? Does anyone know where it comes from?

My off-the-wall hypothesis is that forms practice in the early Kwan days was shallow. The Kim Soo interview in Black Belt magazine mentioned that the early seniors in Korea didn't have a lot of experience or knowledge themselves before they started teaching. I suppose they just passed on what they had learned to that point, which was well short of what someone with an equivalent teaching role in a Chinese or Okinawan art typically knew or had already internalized for themelves. Generations of students beget more students, all performing patterns the same way. Eventually, the [insert TKD governing body] began standardizing performance qualities based on their experiences and there you have it.

This is an overly simplistic answer but I think there's some truth to it. Look at the beginner students in karate or kung fu. Are they not robotic?

 

[exile]

My off-the-wall hypothesis is that forms practice in the early Kwan days was shallow. The Kim Soo interview in Black Belt magazine mentioned that the early seniors in Korea didn't have a lot of experience or knowledge themselves before they started teaching. I suppose they just passed on what they had learned to that point, which was well short of what someone with an equivalent teaching role in a Chinese or Okinawan art typically knew or had already internalized for themelves. Generations of students beget more students, all performing patterns the same way. Eventually, the [insert TKD governing body] began standardizing performance qualities based on their experiences and there you have it.

This is an overly simplistic answer but I think there's some truth to it. Look at the beginner students in karate or kung fu. Are they not robotic?

I don't know that there's anything at all simplistic about it, d.a.... it does tell a coherent tale that matches up with the historical facts. And it dovetails with other stuff I've read, and heard independently on MT, stuff from people whose knowledge base I trust, to the effect that the Kwan founders were not particularly strong on the rich base of bunkai applications underlying the karate forms they'd brought back from Japan (Upnorthkyosa, one of our outstanding Tang Soo Do people, has made this point in several threads, as I recall). I think that might have varied a bit from school to school—the Song Moo Kwan founder, Byung Jik Ro, was a Shotokan fourth dan, and interestingly enough, the performance rhythms we learn for our hyungs are much closer to that Shotokan alternation of high and low intensity levels than seems to be the case for a lot of other schools—but overall, the understanding of the form applications in the original kwans was probably relatively diluted, as you say....