Who gets to change a kata or technique…

[geezer]

If the point is that there are SOME folks who shouldn't... sure. In the hands of an incompetent, you may have significant harm done, such as with Potato Jesus. I would guess that we all agree that some folks shouldn't mess around.

View attachment 27894

But this shouldn't suggest that NONE should attempt it, because in the hands of someone competent, the modifications could be as much a masterpiece as the original. Point being... while some shouldn't... there are many who could... possibly even should. So, the question is, who are those people?
View attachment 27895

Great example. The upper recreation of the damaged portrait of Jesus was inspired. The lower "restoration" not so much (yawn).

BTW I like the upper one so much that I plan to get "Ecce Mono" as it has become known, on a tee shirt!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

in the hands of someone competent, the modifications could be as much a masterpiece as the original.

Agree with you 100% on this.

For the original Chinese wrestling hip throw, you need to turn your back into your opponent. Since when you turn, your opponent can control your waist and drag you down to the ground.

My senior SC brother changed it into a sideway entry without body turning. IMO, his new change is much better than the original.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I remember one time in talking to another student who couldn't make an application work for himself so he changed the movements/application to something he liked better. The moves were very similar, the flow was very similar and if you didn't know better it would just seem like that was the way it was supposed to be. The problem was the original move he took out was the only place where this idea/technique was presented in the forms, so anyone who might have learned from him if he became an instructor also would have lost this piece of knowledge and had a gap in their arsenal and personal study of the art.

In my study, I keep the kata the way they were taught to me. I will take pieces and parts and experiment with them in my own study and do make changes while digging deeper. But, when I instruct that kata, it is back to the way it was taught to me. Why? Because I may not know what knowledge I may lose if I change something to fit me, or what a student may lose if I make a change based on what I think is best.

I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.

 

[geezer]

I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.

Don't you think that depends on whether there are other teachers in the same system who might have that knowledge and be willing to share? Or, if with time and practice the application or concept behind the movements becomes apparent to the teacher?

I know that both of the above have happened to me. In some cases an associate or more experienced instructor has explained application where I was uncertain, and in other cases, the application of some sequences became clearer after working with the movements for a long time, usually testing stuff with a partner.

Sometimes the lightbulb went on after working with something very different... like Wing Chun giving me insight into Escrima and vice versa.

As a youth, the grown-ups often told me to shut up and listen ...to really listen. It was good advice ...had I listened .

Ironically, I eventually realized that I also could learn a lot by talking ...you know, explaining, demonstrating and doing. The stuff I figured out that way, I never forgot!

Sometimes as traditionalists we emphasize the first method too much, even to the point of preventing learning through experimentation and our arts suffer for it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I kind of think that if a teacher doesn't understand and can't apply a given movement from a form, then the piece of knowledge in question has already been lost, even if the teacher keeps the same official choreography in the form as they were originally taught.

All my life, I cannot find any application for this right arm movement in the following clips. I was taught it was throwing a dart. I tried to throw a drat that way. It just didn't work well.

If I can't even explain this to myself, how can I teach this to others? I just have to change it into an upward block instead.

Can anybody be able to come up a MA application for this?

Sometime people change form just because some moves in the original form don't make sense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Anyone who adds or tries to change waza is probably trying to because they could not do the original one.

That’s an overstatement in the extreme. There are a lot of reasons one might change waza. Your statement implies waza is inherently perfect, otherwise we’d have to allow that sometimes the change is just an improvement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’ve made my feelings pretty clear about this issue, I think potentially anyone can make changes, but probably most people simply should not.

But that being said, I also kind of feel like a form is something that someone else created, so on a simple level, why change it? Feel free to make your own, but why change someone’s work? I can read The Lord of the Rings over and over, but if I wanted to try my hand at high fantasy authorship, I wouldn’t revise that work. I would write my own. I have no business changing someone else’s work, even if I think I can make the story better. It is what it is, and it simply is not my story to change.

Maybe there is a parallel here…

I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think a more accurate writing analogy might be editing rather than revising.

Or, in some cases, translating - where there are decisions like whether to preserve word choice, or idiomatic meaning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you don't understand a kata and you change it, you cannot say no harm done. You have no idea.

If you claim to understand a kata, you probably don't. Refer to the sentence above.

An "improved" kata...View attachment 27893

So nobody understands kata??

 

[bill miller]

All my life, I cannot find any application for this right arm movement in the following clips. I was taught it was throwing a dart. I tried to throw a drat that way. It just didn't work well.

If I can't even explain this to myself, how can I teach this to others? I just have to change it into an upward block instead.

Can anybody be able to come up a MA application for this?

Sometime people change form just because some moves in the original form don't make sense.

It looks to me like a deflection setting up a joint lock. I think it may depend on the following movements, or maybe the preceding ones.

 

[geezer]

So nobody understands kata??

Depends on the person ...and the kata, I guess.

Most of the martial arts aren't nearly as old as people think they are. Same goes for the forms. And they all change with each generation. Some things are forgotten, or understood differently and some things are rediscovered, and new things are added. That's just the way things are.

Though I don't practice karate, I'm told that modern karate kata are done differently than ...say Funakoshi's, which were different from the old Okinawan stuff, which was different from the Chinese stuff like Ngo Cho, which is a descendent, but different from ancestral Chinese Crane boxing, and so on...

The forms and techniques of my core art, Wing Chun have similarly changed over time. Interestingly, one of it's ancestors was also Crane boxing. But even the most traditional WC doesn't look much like Japanese karate or Korean TKD. Yet they all share some common ancestry.

So while kata/forms are a useful tool for passing on knowledge, they are not some form of ancient, immutable embodiment of absolute truth.

I do not believe forms should be casually changed or discarded, but neither should they be held up as something sacred, mystical and eternal. That borders on a sort of ...martial arts idolatry.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It looks to me like a deflection setting up a joint lock. I think it may depend on the following movements, or maybe the preceding ones.

That right arm move is at the end of this form (at 2.00). By referencing with the move before and after, will you be able to figure out the application for it?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on the person ...and the kata, I guess.

Most of the martial arts aren't nearly as old as people think they are. Same goes for the forms. And they all change with each generation. Some things are forgotten, or understood differently and some things are rediscovered, and new things are added. That's just the way things are.

Though I don't practice karate, I'm told that modern karate kata are done differently than ...say Funakoshi's, which were different from the old Okinawan stuff, which was different from the Chinese stuff like Ngo Cho, which is a descendent, but different from ancestral Chinese Crane boxing, and so on...

The forms and techniques of my core art, Wing Chun have similarly changed over time. Interestingly, one of it's ancestors was also Crane boxing. But even the most traditional WC doesn't look much like Japanese karate or Korean TKD. Yet they all share some common ancestry.

So while kata/forms are a useful tool for passing on knowledge, they are not some form of ancient, immutable embodiment of absolute truth.

I do not believe forms should be casually changed or discarded, but neither should they be held up as something sacred, mystical and eternal. That borders on a sort of ...martial arts idolatry.

Agreed, on all points.

And I'll go farther and say that if someone doesn't understand a kata, they probably shouldn't teach that kata (except as a basic movement exercise) until they do. And if a kata is difficult to understand at a basic level, that might be a reason to change it.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Don't you think that depends on whether there are other teachers in the same system who might have that knowledge and be willing to share? Or, if with time and practice the application or concept behind the movements becomes apparent to the teacher?

In cases where another teacher of the system has the missing knowledge, it might be better to wait and learn directly from that teacher rather than practicing an empty movement which you don't understand. Reason being - when a teacher and student don't understand a given movement then it can start to diverge from its functional form. If you go through multiple generations of instructors then this becomes more and more likely.

I'll give a specific example. @wab25 likes to cite the example of a movement in many karate forms which involves stepping forward with a "down block." He believes this movement is actually supposed to represent a certain type of takedown. I find this quite plausible. It certainly would be much more functional than the idea of stepping forward to block a kick which would have been out of range if you hadn't stepped forward.

However - if this is indeed the original intended meaning of the movement in the kata, then the overwhelming majority of karateka are performing the movement incorrectly when they practice. I'm familiar with the takedown in question and the body mechanics necessary to make it work are drastically different from the way most people perform the stepping "down block" in their kata. If you learn the kata the way most people practice it, then I don't think it will give you any advantage in learning the takedown later.

Now if you learned the takedown first and practiced it to functionality with a partner and then learned the kata using the correct body mechanics for the takedown, then I think you could get some practical use out of drilling that step of the kata when you didn't have a training partner handy.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don’t see a kata as being like a work of fiction. If someone wants to emphasize certain principles and/or movements, changes to the kata may reinforce those. Why should it be necessary to start from scratch and create an entirely new kata, rather than using a base that has already proven useful?

Sure, and I think Ive made it clear that I find this acceptable too. I can see it both ways.

 

[Flying Crane]

So nobody understands kata??

I think that different people mean different things when they say “understand” kata/forms. I also think that often, people are willing to make things more difficult/complicated/obscure than they need to be.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now if you learned the takedown first and practiced it to functionality with a partner and then learned the kata using the correct body mechanics for the takedown, then I think you could get some practical use out of drilling that step of the kata when you didn't have a training partner handy.

I really think this is the better order for using kata, except where it's a movement exercise. Understanding the technique (or techniques, where a kata movement can be used in several) at a basic level gives the kata significant meaning, and informs the student's practice.

 

[Steve]

Agreed, on all points.

And I'll go farther and say that if someone doesn't understand a kata, they probably shouldn't teach that kata (except as a basic movement exercise) until they do. And if a kata is difficult to understand at a basic level, that might be a reason to change it.

When you all say "understand a kata", what does that mean to you? We're really circling around the core issue here, which is how some folks who never fight purport to know what really works on the street because they believe they are on a path to advanced expertise in forms. How can one truly "understand a kata" or become an expert in forms without that experience?

Unless kata is not about fighting, which is just fine. Or alternatively, when folks talk about truly understanding forms, they have in mind someone who has extensive experience outside of the forms... I'm sure there are some folks out there with experience.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So nobody understands kata??

I'm sure some do. I don't know who those people are. I'll bet they don't advertise much, though. Just a thought.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that different people mean different things when they say “understand” kata/forms. I also think that often, people are willing to make things more difficult/complicated/obscure than they need to be.

That's why bunkai has different levels. What looks like a middle body block and a punch is exactly that. The question is what else it could be, for those interested in pursuing it. The information is there, waiting to be explored, unless one either isn't interested, can't figure out how to make it work, or changes it to fit their understanding of the application instead.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with not caring to take it beyond the surface level. I find it mighty fascinating, personally. It's not about how complicated it needs to be to me. It's about how interesting it can be.