R
RCastillo
Guest
What is the difference between Master Tatum's "Rearrangement "Concept, vs Formulation, and the "What if" concepts?
Thanks to all.:asian:
Thanks to all.:asian:
Just from reading posts from Mr Tatums students, I think rearangment comes from knowing and understanding the ideal, where as formulation as I, understand it, happens by making descisions at the proper moments while moving from point of origin. This can occur with a single tech idea or with none at all.
Sean
OP
MisterMike
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #3
I think What-if is what sparks Rearrangement and Formulation.
Rearrangement uses the same moves in a different order, and Formulation may include new alternative moves.
The way that they are the same is that they are all bells and whistles the Kenpo community uses to sounds realllly cool
Do you have a better term that isn't so pretentious?Originally posted by MisterMike
I think What-if is what sparks Rearrangement and Formulation.
Rearrangement uses the same moves in a different order, and Formulation may include new alternative moves.
The way that they are the same is that they are all bells and whistles the Kenpo community uses to sounds realllly cool
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,069
- Reaction score
- 25
Rearrangement is part of the equation formula.
This is true.:asian: But I think Mr. Tatum developed a rearangment concept much like Mr. Pick expanded on range and the eight considerations.
Sean
Rearrangement is only one of the ways that a technique can be modified in the What-If phase. You could Insert, Delete, Prefix, Suffix, Adjust, Alter, or Regulate ... within the What-If phase of a technique.
Formulation is a little different as it is not necessarily JUST modifying an existing technique. You have more latitude when in the Formulation Phase.
This is just scratching the surface, and not necessarily what Mr. Tatum was talking about, as I am not one of his students, but EPAK-wise, generally, this is what is meant.
-Michael
Formulation is a little different as it is not necessarily JUST modifying an existing technique. You have more latitude when in the Formulation Phase.
This is just scratching the surface, and not necessarily what Mr. Tatum was talking about, as I am not one of his students, but EPAK-wise, generally, this is what is meant.
-Michael
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #8
Not to speak for nobody, but my understanding is that:
a) you learn the base, "ideal," techniques against ideal attacks;
b) later, you start "grafting," techniques (i.e. screwing up what you're supposed to be doing, and picking something out of your growing bag o'tricks that works)
c) later still, around the time you start on the extensions to the base techniques (it's part of what learning the extensions is for), you start taking the "what if," into account;
d) later still still, you start rethinking some of what you'd learned about "what ifs," in the past (examples: Broken Gift as a patch job for when Gift of Destruction didn't git it; Flight to Freedom as a patch for Locked Wing)
e) way later still, you move to a more "spontaneous," stage--which means that you start acting as the Rearrangement Forumla suggests;
f) around 30-40 years in, you may start doing magic. Who knows what that is.
Or:
With enough practice, "what'ifs" cause you to move off the base technique into something else. What else? rearrangement formula says you start editing and reshuffling other "blocks," of techniques from elsewhere in your repertoire. This is what formulation is--rearrangement in new and meaningful patterns, NOT coming up with something from scratch.
That's why learning kenpo gets compared so often to learning a language. I know some will hate this, but reading some basic structuralist theory really helps--there's good web-based stuff out of the Univ. of Colorado on ferdinand de saussure and Claude Levi-Strauss.
Or look up the word, "bricolage."
Clyde is arguing--and I agree--that in the end, things become simpler because you start "reverting," to very sophisticated versions of what you already know. The sophitication isn't necessarily in "creating," a brand-new move, but in applying an "old," move with greaterunderstanding and ability; or, it's in knowing when and where to hit the AC with the same old hammer.
The error is to confuse fancy, shiny and new with sophisticated.
a) you learn the base, "ideal," techniques against ideal attacks;
b) later, you start "grafting," techniques (i.e. screwing up what you're supposed to be doing, and picking something out of your growing bag o'tricks that works)
c) later still, around the time you start on the extensions to the base techniques (it's part of what learning the extensions is for), you start taking the "what if," into account;
d) later still still, you start rethinking some of what you'd learned about "what ifs," in the past (examples: Broken Gift as a patch job for when Gift of Destruction didn't git it; Flight to Freedom as a patch for Locked Wing)
e) way later still, you move to a more "spontaneous," stage--which means that you start acting as the Rearrangement Forumla suggests;
f) around 30-40 years in, you may start doing magic. Who knows what that is.
Or:
With enough practice, "what'ifs" cause you to move off the base technique into something else. What else? rearrangement formula says you start editing and reshuffling other "blocks," of techniques from elsewhere in your repertoire. This is what formulation is--rearrangement in new and meaningful patterns, NOT coming up with something from scratch.
That's why learning kenpo gets compared so often to learning a language. I know some will hate this, but reading some basic structuralist theory really helps--there's good web-based stuff out of the Univ. of Colorado on ferdinand de saussure and Claude Levi-Strauss.
Or look up the word, "bricolage."
Clyde is arguing--and I agree--that in the end, things become simpler because you start "reverting," to very sophisticated versions of what you already know. The sophitication isn't necessarily in "creating," a brand-new move, but in applying an "old," move with greaterunderstanding and ability; or, it's in knowing when and where to hit the AC with the same old hammer.
The error is to confuse fancy, shiny and new with sophisticated.
That cleared it up for me nicely. Not my framework, but it certainly makes perfect sense.
I stongly agree with ...
I know this is what continues to challenge me.
-Michael
I stongly agree with ...
I know this is what continues to challenge me.
-Michael
The whole, "because you have screwed up" mentality is why I reject the premis.
Sean
Sean
bdparsons
Black Belt
in the IKCA we use the term "Blending and Borrowing" to describe the process being discussed.
Respects,
Bill Parsons
Respects,
Bill Parsons
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #12
Well, deck o' cards or whatever, it's the same-same deal.
TOD, sorry, you're mistaken here. Perfection? To quote R.A. Lafferty, "Perfection is a mighty hard road," thought Snuffles, the King of Bellota. or to pretty much quote Mr. Tatum, "The proper way to recover from a spin back kick is to fall out of it." (try doing your cross-outs as though you were falling...)
Michael, glad to see that someone besides me--and someone with more time-in-grade!--still marvels at their own stupidity.
I stick by my insight of several years back: it's "Dogs watching TV," as far as I'm concerned.
TOD, sorry, you're mistaken here. Perfection? To quote R.A. Lafferty, "Perfection is a mighty hard road," thought Snuffles, the King of Bellota. or to pretty much quote Mr. Tatum, "The proper way to recover from a spin back kick is to fall out of it." (try doing your cross-outs as though you were falling...)
Michael, glad to see that someone besides me--and someone with more time-in-grade!--still marvels at their own stupidity.
I stick by my insight of several years back: it's "Dogs watching TV," as far as I'm concerned.
