Who gets to change a kata or technique…

[Holmejr]

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?

 

[Flying Crane]

My opinion: kata is a training tool. It is not sacred. Making a change is not automatically a corruption nor changes the identity. However, most people probably have no business making changes. But potentially, anyone can. The Kata Gods will not strike you dead.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

changing a kata to fit ones needs ...

If you change few words in a Shakespeare's play, that play was still created by Shakespeare and not created by you. You can only have credit for a play if that play is completely written by you.

I have condensed a 108 moves Taiji form into a 48 moves Taiji form. Did I create any new moves in that new form? No! I only removed the redundancy.

I have created a new form for a "dancing for health" group (Yuan Ji Wu) by picking up moves from many different forms. Did I create a new form? No! I only tore some forms apart and did reconstruction. In other words, I didn't create anything new.

You will get credit if you can create a new form. It's not a easy task. Can you create a new kick, new punch, new lock, new throw, new strategy, or ... that has not been done by anybody else? It's difficult if not impossible.

In other words, no matter what you do, you just copy and edit. There is no creation at all. If you just change a front kick into a roundhouse kick, you have just replaced a word with a different word in a sentence. The grammar in that sentence has not been changed yet.

 

[Gyakuto]

Kata will change over time because we are not computer-controlled robots and thus we inadvertently introduce idiosyncratic modifications to the movements. When I see old clips of, say Gichin Funakoshi or Nakayama Hakudo, performing their versions of Karate/Iaido kata respectively, one can immediately see the disparity with present day versions, so the inextricable evolution of Budo is clearly taking place.

There is also the concept of ‘Shu Ha Ri’ and if anyone does reach the ‘Ri’ stage, perhaps they might modify kata (although out of humbleness, most 8th Dan Hanshi suggest they’re still at the ‘Shu’ stage).

 

[_Simon_]

It's actually a really interesting question. I don't have any sort of answer or criteria I'm aware of, but have only heard that at master level one is qualified or has the authority. Then again that's a little sketchy and uncertain.

But I do see it as a natural thing which occurs, and certainly not as heresy, but perhaps a different understanding of or application of the principles.

To me it makes sense that the essence or principles remain in tact though. Then that sort of sounds like me saying the kata shouldn't change hehe. I guess I see kata as a model you can use to EXPLORE certain principles. In that sense, it's actually not stuck, or static, but freeing.

But anyway, I'm not sure at what stage you have the authority to actually modify kata, AND still call the kata under the same name.

 

[Gyakuto]

What designates a ‘master’. It’s a term used much more in the US, but I know of 8th Dan Hanshi who move so freely and naturally and others, who merely hit the stipulated ‘ideal points’. I’d trust the former to modify kata a lot more than the latter.

 

[dvcochran]

Kata will change over time because we are not computer-controlled robots and thus we inadvertently introduce idiosyncratic modifications to the movements. When I see old clips of, say Gichin Funakoshi or Nakayama Hakudo, performing their versions of Karate/Iaido kata respectively, one can immediately see the disparity with present day versions, so the inextricable evolution of Budo is clearly taking place.

There is also the concept of ‘Shu Ha Ri’ and if anyone does reach the ‘Ri’ stage, perhaps they might modify kata (although out of humbleness, most 8th Dan Hanshi suggest they’re still at the ‘Shu’ stage).

Agree. If the kata/form/hyung/poomsae do not change over time, they will die out. True for a whole style/system.
As sentient beings, we are always learning how to do things better/faster/smarter. Things like efficiency of motion change application.

 

[seasoned]

My 2 cents......kata moves are made up of basic techniques that form the individual kata. What changes are the interpretation of those techniques of which there are many. The integrity of the individual kata should stay intact and is the difference between old school and modern dojo....

 

[Gyakuto]

I don’t think they’ll ‘die out’, they’ll simply be ‘static’ in the way J S Bach’s Goldberg Variations are static, but nevertheless, utterly beautiful. I think our arts look better because of advances in physical culture (intelligent stretching, progressive weight-training, the integration of cardiovascular fitness, sports psychology, kinesiology and better general education etc). I don’t see a static art as being an issue, especially for an aesthetic martial art. It preserves a piece of beautiful history (as does the manuscript for the Goldberg Variations). But of course, the petson playing those little black dots will ‘interpret‘ them purposely or inadvertently…as we Budoka interpret kata movements

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

Here's my thought on this: everyone, within context. While there is some utility to fixed kata (everyone within an organization can do kata together), I think that's outweighed by the utility and reason around changing it.

First, let me be clear that I think too often, elements in a MA system are kept static out of a belief that the person who created them had some level of genius. They may have, but it's a safe bet they were still evolving what they taught at the point folks are trying to freeze the system to. I also believe it extraordinarily unlikely that the masters of old were smarter and/or better informed than the complete gathering of people practicing the arts today.

So, who could change a kata?

• Any student, when practicing the kata, is likely to understand it better if they "play with it". I teach my students to vary speed, stance height, level of tension, and (within reason) the stances. By doing this, they both find out why I chose what I chose (a simliar stance doesn't facilitate the move to the next technique, for instance) and find out where variations fit their body better. After they have a decent grip on the basics of the kata, I also suggest some technique variations that fit the basic movements, so they can use the kata more broadly. So the student can change the kata for their use. It's important they learn the base kata, though, so they aren't just altering to avoid where they lack skill.
• Any instructor, to fit their approach. It's my strong belief that every instructor should be looking to add to their art, because it's literally impossible for them to have learned 100% of what their instructor was trying to teach. Since there's always loss in transmisison, adding in what you confidently can is the only way to prevent major degradation of an art over time. I'm not talking about wanton alteration, but about bits and degrees. (Some of those "changes" will likely be what they didn't understand, and think they are adding back to an art that already had it.) With kata, this would mean adjusting so the kata fits movement patterns and stances as the instructor teaches. For instance, I teach a boxing-style fighting stance, in addition to the standard Karate-style. Both should be in my kata. These changes would be school-specific, and it might be useful to also teach the un-altered version, for when students attend seminars, etc.
• Ranking instructors and heads-of-style, as the system has a need to evolve. This would include when pushing for some significant change in emphasis (perhaps something like the sine wave movement in TKD), or to "fix" a portion of kata that just doesn't support modern usage of the art (I'm looking at you, confusing bunkai).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you change few words in a Shakespeare's play, that play was still created by Shakespeare and not created by you. You can only have credit for a play if that play is completely written by you.

I have condensed a 108 moves Taiji form into a 48 moves Taiji form. Did I create any new moves in that new form? No! I only removed the redundancy.

I have created a new form for a "dancing for health" group (Yuan Ji Wu) by picking up moves from many different forms. Did I create a new form? No! I only tore some forms apart and did reconstruction. In other words, I didn't create anything new.

You will get credit if you can create a new form. It's not a easy task. Can you create a new kick, new punch, new lock, new throw, new strategy, or ... that has not been done by anybody else? It's difficult if not impossible.

In other words, no matter what you do, you just copy and edit. There is no creation at all. If you just change a front kick into a roundhouse kick, you have just replaced a word with a different word in a sentence. The grammar in that sentence has not been changed yet.

I think you did create new forms. If I disassemble a shed and use the lumber to make a new shed, I've built a new shed. Of course, if I pull the siding off and simply re-mount it with better fasteners, I didn't build a new shed. Same if all I did was remove a small area from one side of the shed.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think you did create new forms. If I disassemble a shed and use the lumber to make a new shed, I've built a new shed. Of course, if I pull the siding off and simply re-mount it with better fasteners, I didn't build a new shed. Same if all I did was remove a small area from one side of the shed.

You are familiar with the thought experiment 'The Ship of Theseus' in the field of identity metaphysics?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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?

Anyone can. Few should.

Most intentional changes are ill-conceived, poorly executed, and introduce errors. They neither enhance nor make clear the supposed purpose of the changes made.

However, most changes are accidentally introduced as one flaw after another is introduced by generation after generation of badly-trained instructors.

I feel strongly, as if anyone didn't already know, that making changes to established kata simply shows that one does not correctly understand the kata they are changing. Worse, it closes off the possibility that their own students eventually might understand them.

I feel I understand maybe 1/10 of 8 empty handed kata I practice, and probably never will fully understand them. I owe it to future generations not to destroy their chance to explore those kata and perhaps understand them better than I ever could. I will change nothing intentionally, and strive not to introduce errors in what I was taught.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Anyone can change forms.
At some point, form A is no longer form A. Exactly how much needs to be changed before that happens is debatable. I'd suggest that if the changes make me go "They're doing A, but not quite right" then it's still form A. If the changes make me go "what form is that???" then it's no longer A and should be renamed.
In practical terms, if you change a form that is used in promotion exams, you should expect to score lower.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If you just change a front kick into a roundhouse kick, you have just replaced a word with a different word in a sentence. The grammar in that sentence has not been changed yet.

"I love MA." "I hate MA." The grammar in these sentences is the same. The meaning, though, has completely changed. Or, "I swim MA," makes the sentence devoid of valid meaning.

What if the move before Wang's kick is designed to position him for a low front kick. Doing a high roundhouse instead will meet with empty air or ineffectively hit a shoulder. The kick becomes meaningless AND the prior set-up move now has no function - future generations copying this change will wonder about its mysterious bunkai.

To me it makes sense that the essence or principles remain in tact though. Then that sort of sounds like me saying the kata shouldn't change hehe. I guess I see kata as a model you can use to EXPLORE certain principles.

There are some great songs out there. Take the "Star Spangled Banner." It has been rendered many times over the past century. Whitney Houstin, Jimi Hendrix (instrumental only), and various pop, soul and operatic singers. Each has put their individual touch and artistic interpretation on it.

Yet, the words have not changed - The meaning has not changed - Only the pronunciation, inflection and pitch. This allows each singer to explore the sounds, have it fit within their physical vocal range, and make the song "their's," without changing the message the song was designed to convey and pass on.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"I love MA." "I hate MA." The grammar in these sentences is the same. The meaning, though, has completely changed. Or, "I swim MA," makes the sentence devoid of valid meaning.

What if the move before Wang's kick is designed to position him for a low front kick. Doing a high roundhouse instead will meet with empty air or ineffectively hit a shoulder. The kick becomes meaningless AND the prior set-up move now has no function - future generations copying this change will wonder about its mysterious bunkai.

There are some great songs out there. Take the "Star Spangled Banner." It has been rendered many times over the past century. Whitney Houstin, Jimi Hendrix (instrumental only), and various pop, soul and operatic singers. Each has put their individual touch and artistic interpretation on it.

Yet, the words have not changed - The meaning has not changed - Only the pronunciation, inflection and pitch. This allows each singer to explore the sounds, have it fit within their physical vocal range, and make the song "their's," without changing the message the song was designed to convey and pass on.

I love the way you explained that!

Every martial artist may express the same kata, taught by the same instructor, somewhat differently. Typically only experienced martial artists who know that style will even notice the difference, because they are subtle and nuanced, rather than grossly obvious. Not unlike the way some musicians might chuckle when they hear a guitarist express a series of notes different to convey a subtle difference, when everyone else hears the same notes from guitarist to guitarist.

But the important part is that they are exploring only what is within the kata, not changing the 'notes' themselves. The moves remain the same; the expressed intent that some experienced eyes can see may be subtly different. Did they 'change' the kata? In that case, I would say no, because nothing whatsoever has been lost; every concept and application that can be expressed within the move is still there, waiting to be explored. Nothing is foreclosed or shut off due to lack of understanding.

Imagine the artists who played their own interpretations of the "Star Spangled Banner," and who were simply changing it because they were not good enough musicians to play the notes. This is what I most commonly see when people 'change' kata. They cannot absorb or were not taught certain things, so rather than trying to understand them, they remove or modify them to something they can actually do. That, in my opinion, is a shame.

 

[skribs]

I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done. There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms. I mean, you could reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are familiar with the thought experiment 'The Ship of Theseus' in the field of identity metaphysics?

I had forgotten the name for it, but yes. And this does get into the same question. I ask about my own system: how much has to change - and how quickly - before it ceases to be the same art? I think that's the same thought experiment, and there really isn't an answer, just principles to discuss (which, of course, is the main value of a good thought experiment like The Ship of Theseus).

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done. There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms. I mean, you could reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.

That holds true for any form set. From what you've said in the past, I would fail you on your performance of the Palgwae forms because of changes your school has made. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the changes, it just means that people will judge your performance based on how they learned the form.
Our KJN has made a few changes but only in a couple, and they are relatively small. I've made it a habit to practice both the original and modified forms. If I were performing them anywhere other than one of our schools, I would do the original version.
If I were doing it competitively at your school, where I know you don't do the original versions, I'd try to get someone from your school to show me your version so I could do it your way. If it wasn't a competition, I'd do the version I personally like better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it depends a lot on the art and how it's done. There's relatively little room for interpretation in the Kukkiwon Taekwondo forms. I mean, you could reinterpret them for yourself, but you would be incorrect as far as the official forms are concerned.

To me, that goes back to the original question, rather than answering it. If the only reason it's wrong is that it doesn't match the official forms, then it's not actually wrong (outside of that context). If you can insert a different movement at point X, and the flow still works, then that new version of the form isn't actually wrong. It's just different. If the inserted move makes the previous move make less sense (awkward transition, poor positions, etc. - the stuff @isshinryuronin was referring to), then we might say there's something wrong with that form.

But for individual exploration (temporary changes by the student), I don't think there's a "wrong". If I put a punch where a kick used to be, it may screw everything up around it, but it'll likely make it more obvious why that kick worked well there.