Static lineage kata vs. individually adapted kata

[stone_dragone]

I can appreciate those who come from a lineage that has preserved their kata unchanged for many generations feeling that they should stay unchanged. If you are learning the kata as the founder taught it, then there's little reason to change it.

How about those who are from a lineage that has changed the kata, whether recently or a few generations ago? The forms are not the original ones that was developed. Do you still teach the kata as learned? If you have no other frame of reference and are teaching it as you learned it, then you are doing it right. But what if you gain additional insight? Do you teach the kata as originally written or as you were originally taught?

Teaching it as written would constitute changing the kata from what you learned... So then do you change the kata from what you learned or keep the change from what was written?

 

[chinto]

How about the idea that kata are just a delivery system? They are like a vehicle that you drive from one place to another. If we update the parts of the vehicle, are we really changing the kata? I think the old masters saw it this way. They understood the concept of what kata were supposed to do, but they didn't subscribe to one particular model or another. They mixed and matched and created the vehicle that worked best for them.

On the other hand, the kata that we practice are like antiques. One would be loath to change them, because they are old, special, and sentimental. A collector doesn't try to modify his Model T, he preserves it in exactly the condition that it was for that time period.

ok, are you saying that what they taught and tested in life and death encounters is now some how invalid because things some how changed??

IF so I would have to ask when we grew a new arm or what changed a fight from even say 3000BC??

my opinion is contained in the quote that is part of my signature. mainly that 15,000BC or today, a fight is the same. we have not changed, so unarmed fights have not changed.

 

[Guliufa]

I believe that every single technique in kata is useful.

The movement in the kata teaches the principles of the mechanics and dynamics and don't necessarily have one application or specific use of the application.

The "fit you" concept reminds me of whole Bruce Lee crap that the MMA crowd seems to believe about "take what is useful and discard the rest". It makes me nauseous whenever I see this. There is NOTHING in Kata that is useless.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In my Isshinryu training, at which I am only a beginner, I am told three things.

First: we do the kata we are taught to the best of our ability the way we are taught it. That means if we are unable for physical reasons to hit a particular posture or stance, we do what we can do, to the best of our ability. This is acceptable.

Second: there is lots of lots of bunkai inside the kata, and it is not wrong to practice kata in a way that demonstrates the intended application; but this is not 'kata', this is bunkai.

Third: From our teacher's teacher - he, and we, are not authorized to change the kata. Period.

In reality, I am aware that historically the kata has been 'cleaned up' by various first-generation students of Shimabuku Soke, and in different ways. The kata practiced today are not all the same, obviously. However, I am told that I am not authorized to change the kata. All other discussions are purely for mental exercise, this is a directive and I understand it. That is all I need to know, and I will follow those instructions. Period, end of discussion, no further inquiries of my instructors needed. I hear and obey.

 

[Victor Smith]

Bill,

Isshinryu is such a delight fully obtuse system. It's founder did change the kata by the student. Both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Harrill explained they witnessed this. (it's far more complex as at different times he changed many things). A different friend always maintained Isshinryu may well be only what Shimabuku Sensei taught (and the result may be Isshinryu(2).

Just to confuse the issue.

I've been rereading the entire issue. Really teaching kata you mold the student towards the kata potential, but as life changes we all change and in time the kata molds to us (say 30 or so years).

Kata have never been static, except for when your instructor tells you so (and then your instructor is always correct - for you).

 

[punisher73]

I think there are a couple of reasons that kata "change". One that I have not seen addressed on the thread.

The founder of the style was ever evolving and growing as a martial artist as well. Sometimes we look at the founder like he suddenly "arrived" and had everything set in stone. All of the greats in ANY martial art all had one thing in common, and that was a dedicated personal study. They were bound to learn more about what they were sharing and figure things out or further refine how to transmit that information.

Even when looking at an "american" art like Ed Parker's kenpo. Look at the MANY arguments about what is really the kenpo that SGM Parker taught. Why is this? Because all of them studied at different times in his personal evolution and didn't stay through all of it.

Also, the PURPOSE of what their focus was will change the kata. For example, in Aikido, if you look at the earlier techniques of Ueshiba it was alot harder and many of the techniques involved pressure point striking with a one knuckle fist (look at his book "Budo" and the pictures) and grabbing the attacker first to apply the lock. Also, from earlier student accounts when Ueshiba would grab onto you, his grip was so strong he would leave bruises. How does that compare with the spiritual route that he emphasized later in his life? Think about early Okinawan karate and how much was lost after WW2, do you think that somethings changed for them? How much changed because many teachers didn't have time to practice karate because they were too busy trying to stay alive for those war years. We see the same changes made to karate by Itosu and Funakoshi when they made alterations to the katas for teaching others.

Again, every art I have ever read the history of changed as it went along either in focus or as the founder/inheritor refined their own personal study and approach. The only time an art stops is when the founder dies. When this happens, we see that the art is frozen in place at wherever the founder was at with his studies. Then we get all the arguments about who is teaching the "real art" or who knew all of the information that the founder had etc.

 

[TimoS]

Think about early Okinawan karate and how much was lost after WW2, do you think that somethings changed for them?

Actually, I think it is pretty much a myth, ("sold" especially by those who are selling their newly discovered "secret" stuff), that much of the Okinawan karate was lost due to WW2. Just an example or two:

• Shorin ryu Seibukan, formed Zenryo Shimabukuro, based on what he learned from Chotoku Kyan. Kyan died after WW2, but Zenryo sensei trained with him all through WW2.
• Kanbun Uechi started teaching around 1925 (according to Wikipedia) and did so all during the war.

Sure, Okinawan karate has changed from the early days, due to the popularity of the art, but I don't believe the inside has changed and that's what matters.

 

[punisher73]

Actually, I think it is pretty much a myth, ("sold" especially by those who are selling their newly discovered "secret" stuff), that much of the Okinawan karate was lost due to WW2. Just an example or two:

• Shorin ryu Seibukan, formed Zenryo Shimabukuro, based on what he learned from Chotoku Kyan. Kyan died after WW2, but Zenryo sensei trained with him all through WW2.
• Kanbun Uechi started teaching around 1925 (according to Wikipedia) and did so all during the war.

Sure, Okinawan karate has changed from the early days, due to the popularity of the art, but I don't believe the inside has changed and that's what matters.

Kanbun Uechi lived in Japan and taught there until 1948, not in Okinawa. Read through the histories, many people talked about losing their top students to the war. I didn't say ALL was lost during the war, just that there was alot lost. And I also didn't say that no one taught or practiced karate during those years, but many did stop.

Also, Zenryo Shimabukuro did not study with Kyan during WW2 because the training had stopped. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenry%C5%8D_Shimabukuro ). Kyan died in Sept. of 1945, about a month after Japan surrendered. There wasn't alot of training going on for Shimabukuro with Kyan after the war.

 

[harlan]

I practice the kata as I'm taught. That being said, I do think that minor things have been 'tweaked' by my teachers in order to bring out the unifying principles in the kata. Making it more of 'system', so to speak.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Very good question, IMO!!! I find it to be best to make the kata work for myself as an individual, rather than what worked for someone else. I go outside the boundaries of my primary style when it comes to finding kata that work for, not onlymyself, but my students as well. I have been fortunate enought over the years to have the chance to learn kata from several different systems and incorporate them into my class curriculum. I have also had to "prune" away some kata form what I teach completely. I have recently started working with the Ashihara Karate kata and they fit quite nicely into my school and they work very well for my students. I have never been nor will I ever be opposed to taking what we need from any system and using it to make ourselves better karateka. I feel that we cannot blindly stick to what was working 50-100+ years ago. I think the masters of old would agree with this concept.

The OP was an excellent question, and this was an excellent response. Kata are a catalog of principles as well as movements for an art. To this end, we need to make sure we have an understanding of those principles and movements. When an instructor has that understanding it is not only important, but imperative to make modifications when necessary. Not to make changes 'just because', but when it is necessary;

• To address an specific injury a student may have that would limit their ability to perform a particular movement.
• To address as specific handicap of a student.
• To address a students strengths or weaknesses.
• As we get older our abilities change.

In regards to the last on my list, I'm dramatically stronger now than I was at half my age due to my power lifting/body building training. But my flexability is less due to various injuries over the years. Whereas 'once upon a time' I could execute a pretty decent high kick, nowadays I'm just as likely to kick you right in the ankle So why train in something that I'm simply not likely or not able to do?

Same for my students. I have ALWAYS adjusted our forms and/or drills to tailor fit each student in my class. I'm not looking for 'cookie-cutter' perfection, rather I'm looking for complete functionality.

We have designed over the last decade just one form (Hyung or Kata) for our Kwan. It consists of 25 principle movements that address common forms of attack/defense. Each movement is usable either at typical arms-length fighting distance or at grappling range. Many are useable whether standing or on the ground. Each movement has a 'skeleton' but that is then tailored to each student based upon their individual needs.

I think the masters of old would agree with this concept

I agree that a lot of them would have expected this of their senior students.

 

[Black Belt Jedi]

It is more traditional to learn two person drills (analysis/applications) before learning kata, recording the self-defense techniques into templates. If practice that way Karate can further develop itself, and change certain techniques in katas if necessary, if not, Karate would stagnate.

 

[Victor Smith]

I guess it depends on what you want to call traditional. Kyan Chotoku only taught kata and did not teach distinct applications. That tradition was the basis transmitted to his students who in turn formed systems in the 50's. Tradition varies with each instructor over and over. The Okinawan arts did to an extent draw upon a pool of shared knowledge, they after all did live on a small island, but karate wasn't developed for concrete need of self defense and until the modern era wasn't shared openly. It was more a private upper class sharing, and to what extent two person drills played into the study is difficult to ascertain. In more current times things keep changing, karate's true tradition.

 

[TimoS]

Kyan Chotoku only taught kata and did not teach distinct applications

I find that hard to believe. I've seen e.g. some of the applications in Passai by students of Nakazato Joen sensei and they were identical to the ones taught to us in Seibukan. To me that indicates that the applications derive from the same root, i.e. Kyan Chotoku.

 

[Victor Smith]

Timo,

I'm relying on one of Joen Nakazato's students for that information. Further bolstered by Dan Smith of the Seibukan who maintains the same point. I wasn't there but trust my friends. That doesn't mane Nakazato's students don't work on applications just that Kyan only focused on the kata in his teachings.

The undocumented past always remains an issue but to date I still trust their experiences.