Forms - final version of a reference book, or evolving tool?

[Matt Stone]

I originally posted this in the Karate forum, but thought it would be appropriate discussion here as well...

There has been a lot of discussion regarding kata lately, and how the practice of kata relates to martial arts practice. Due to this discussion, there have been a lot of conflicting comments, however most of them have been pretty constructive.

Since I (for one) come here to contribute and make the martial arts community less defensive and more beneficial for all, perhaps we could/should discuss the issue of changing kata movements (whatever the reason may be).

I (for one) do not believe that forms should be tampered with. I say this not beause I have a religious attitude toward them and feel they are sacred, but because they were designed to be a certain way for a certain reason. Whether the form is ancient or modern, the creator of the form had a reason behind making movements just so. If he/she didn't, then there would be plenty of play in how you could perform the movements (and would then be pretty much open to do whatever you wanted). There are techniques in the shadow-boxing movements of kata that are able to be applied because of this requirement for the body to be positioned "just so." Changing those positions changes the application(s) present, and in many cases causes the original combative utility of the movement to be nullified entirely. I have recently been shown a set of movements from an Isshin-ryu kata that performed one way result in a devastating set of strikes against an overhead attack, and performed in a modified way (as is done in another Isshin-ryu school) they result in the defender getting popped in the melon...

For us CMAers here, I have seen this especially in Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua... One set of folks say "hands here," and another set of folks, same style, say "hands there," yet both claim the same application...

So what are your thoughts? While some kata are well known and practiced by many, what do you think about the how and why regarding the variations in their practice? Did the instructor learn the form improperly or incompletely, or did he have an epiphany and change it because of having achieved a higher level of skill and understanding?

And remember, play nice...

Gambarimasu.

:asian:

 

[Kirk]

Sorry to chime in with a question, instead of a response, but I'm
curious. I was taught that forms/kata were comprised of the
style of the system as a whole. Meaning the whole style's
techniques and lessons were all summed up by the forms/kata
of that style. IF that's the case, then I would think that the only
reason to change the kata would be if the system changed. And
IF that is the case, then it'd be a NEW system, would it not?
Again, I know nothing. If I'm wrong, then PLEASE, enlighten me.
:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

When I first started MA back in 1985, I thought forms were just exercises. Then I learned they were actually combinations of techniques to be used against an opponent. Then I figured that, since there were so many forms, they must all be necessarily mastered in order to master that system. Then, I learned they had techniques "hidden" in them beyond their basic applications. Then I learned that the techniques weren't "hidden," just that they were catalogued into a sequence of easy to remember combinations, and that those combinations could be applied a number of different ways depending on the relation of the angle between the attacker and defender, and the nature of the attack.

So there you go.

ThenI learn that in many systems it was anticipated that you would in all likelihood only ever "master" one form. Then I learn that in some systems, early on, you only ever learned one form, and the "style" of your martial art was that form!

So depending on how you look at it, the forms are the style, and changing the forms does change the style to a certain degree...

But my comment/question/post/etc. is directed at the folks that argue about specific movements/placements/etc. of hands/feet/strikes/kicks/blocks to describe either essentially the same application, or that argue about different applications being the "one true application" for the identical body positioning...

Discussing your comment would open a whole 'nother can of worms...

 

[Dronak]

That sounds similar to my understanding of forms, Yiliquan1. I may not have gone through all those exact stages in that order, but something similar. I thought forms were designed to be a fight sequence that was made that way to help you remember ways to use them in combination, but also as a way of learning the moves in the style, sort of cataloging them in ways that are easy to remember. I think I see what you mean about techniques not really being hidden. I'm inclined to think that if it's not the obvious application of the move, then it's still hidden, but I suppose that's just a matter of viewpoint.

Hmm, I'm not sure about your original question. It kind of seems like both sides can be right in different ways. I think you said it pretty well:
"those combinations could be applied a number of different ways depending on the relation of the angle between the attacker and defender, and the nature of the attack." So couldn't two different body positions have the same one application? Change the opponent's movement, direction, something, and the hand/feet/body position would change in order to perform the same move, right? Same for one position having multiple applications, I think. Depending on what your opponent is doing, you could use the same position as a lead in to different moves. It seems like there's a lot of variability.

About changing forms, given my limited knowledge and understanding of MA in general, I'm inclined to believe they shouldn't be changed, at least not without very good reason. The forms were designed that way for a reason and you shouldn't change them without knowing what you're doing. Traditional arts that have existed for centuries have centuries of experience built in to the creation of forms. I imagine they tried different combinations and such and over the years they came up with one that was tested and shown to be the best for its purpose. That's why it has lasted until today. I'm not saying all change is bad, obviously people had to change and try different things to find out what worked the best. Just that if something has been shown to be effective for its intended purpose, you need to really think before you change it.

 

[Bod]

The forms are multilayered. If you mess with a part you mess with the whole.

Kung-fu forms often have chi-kung which was designed to be applied in a certain sequence.

Some of the moves have multiple uses. Often what works as a block and a strike in one single action- common in kung fu- turns into a throw in combination with another movement. If you shift the movements around the throw disappears. I didn't even start to see half of the throws in my kung-fu forms until I started to do Judo.

Goodness knows what else is in the forms. Why fix it if you don't even know how it works?

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Bod

Why fix it if you don't even know how it works?

Exactly, how can you "fix" something if you have not mastered it? And after the time it takes to "master" the form, I believe you would see its usefullness and wouldn't need to change it. The true useeefulness of a form extends far beyond the sight of fixed movement.


7sm

 

[chufeng]

I think it's OK to add a form to a system...based on an instructors OWN understanding of the underlying principles (and I'm sure that is what happened with many systems)...but do not change the original form from what your teacher taught you...the applications from tyhe form are going to be slanted towards the teacher's own interpretations of the movements, anyways.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by Dronak

I think I see what you mean about techniques not really being hidden. I'm inclined to think that if it's not the obvious application of the move, then it's still hidden, but I suppose that's just a matter of viewpoint.

I hate to sound overly authoritarian, but it is a matter of the correct viewpoint... My entire argument is based on that presumption - the "hidden" is simply what you don't see on the obvious exterior. But some folks have trouble with understanding what words mean...

Same for one position having multiple applications, I think. Depending on what your opponent is doing, you could use the same position as a lead in to different moves. It seems like there's a lot of variability.

In Yiliquan, we have a lot of the same postures that are contained in Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua. But we also have some that are not contained in those arts. Our orientation toward movement and technique would provide for a near infinite number of postures, and if we were to name each and every one, we would have lists up the wazoo... So instead, we categorize hand techniques, foot techniques and stepping methods. So a Horizontal Knife Hand (where, for example, the right hand strikes away from the body so that the hand begins near the left ear/shoulder ending with the right arm extended, held palm down) in a Back Stance may be one technique. If we step forward, at an angle, pivoting, whatever, it can take the exact same stance and strike and cause it to be a number of different things - different strike angles cause different effects, the stepping and angle of attack (not to mention the kind of technique used in the attack) can cause it to be any number of joint locks, etc.

Gotta run. Limited time allowed on the PC here at the library. I am still in transit and haven't moved into my house yet. Perhaps once I get the PC back and internet up and running, I will go into more detail about how Yili approaches this issue.

Gambarimasu.

 

[7starmantis]

I think it all goes back to what you are studying for. Most people who study Kung Fu are looking for sefl defense but also a traditional system. If you change a form you are no longer practicing Kung Fu or that particular system. Not saying you aren't training or can't defend yourself, but that system is chagned and is no longer what you are training.


7sm

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by 7starmantis

I think it all goes back to what you are studying for. Most people who study Kung Fu are looking for sefl defense but also a traditional system.

I would agree. People that get interested in CMA instead of the shopping mall TKD schools tend to be interested in more of the background of what they are doing (as opposed to just filling in little Jimmy's evenings between soccer practices).

If you change a form you are no longer practicing Kung Fu or that particular system.

I don't know about the "no longer practicing kung fu" comment. I think you may be misunderstanding what "kung fu" implies, and perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are intending in using those words... IMO, you are still practicing "kung fu," just watered down, misinterpreted, low grade kung fu... As for the "(not) practicing... that particular system," I think you are right on the money. What the art was before the change was the art, and what is is after is some mutation...

Not saying you aren't training or can't defend yourself, but that system is chagned and is no longer what you are training.

Maybe it could be said that the system is changed and is no longer what it is representing itself as...

Gambarimasu.

 

[7starmantis]

I'm using the words Kung Fu in the general sense that they are used in todays world. I know they are basically watered down low grade words of the actual meaning, but they are the easiest terms to get a point across, and I'm lazy!

I think we agree about the form changing and no longer being that particular system. Exactly, the system is no longer the same system you began to study, thus a misrepresentation would be correct.


7sm

 

[Matt Stone]

Now, while I do not believe that forms should be messed with, at the same time martial arts are meant to be living, breathing things... There may well be modern applications to techniques (I am thinking against guns, primarily, but I am open to other ideas) in forms that are not taught as "standard" with that form, but that may well be applicable.

In that instance, I see no problem with someone maybe adding to the breakdowns of a form... But the form is as it is for a reason.

Additionally, if a given form were discovered to have been taught incorrectly, learned incorrectly or practiced incorrectly, and a corrected version of the form (and the legitimacy of the correction could be validated somehow) was discovered, I would see no problem in making the necessary changes.

Just my 2 yen...

Gambarimasu.

:asian:

 

[7starmantis]

I agree, but the traditional system still remains "unchanged". If it was incorrectly learned, the new change is in reality, no change at all from the actual system.

Looks like we finally agree on something!!


7sm

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by 7starmantis

Looks like we finally agree on something!!

7sm

Well, we wouldn't want to start a trend... the world might come to an abrupt halt if we started playing nice...

:asian: