Who strives for original intent?

[GojuTommy]

Some forms are verbatim records of proven fighting principles and tactics. "This is how you stop a punch and hit them back." But some forms are methods of passing along movement principles or how to connect things. "This is how you move your body to generate power." Other forms are simply catalogs of techniques and movements. "Punch one, stance two, step three..." And some forms are just stories and demonstrations; they may preserve a story of an attack and defense, or simply be an exciting string of moves, or a physical exercise for conditioning the body.

So... tearing down a form to "original intent" may need to start before the first stance or punch... What is the intent of the form or kata itself? Then you can look into the intent of the motions themselves?

And how does one determine the different types of kata then?

 

[jks9199]

And how does one determine the different types of kata then?

You'll have to figure that out for yourself -- but analysis of the form should give you a clue. What's happening? What story can be told? What does your art tell you about the origin of the form?

 

[drop bear]

I don't agree with the concept. As I think movement traing is more about meta than specifics.

If you can make your body do what you want it to. That is more effective than doing a specific movement in fighting.

It almost becomes a timing vs technique thing.

You may notice when you move around with a dancer or an acrobat or something that they can do these wide ranges of techniques as if by magic.

But of course it isn’t. It is trained.

So things like contact improv or ido portal stuff is starting to do the rounds.

And none of that looks realistic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't agree with the concept. As I think movement traing is more about meta than specifics.

If you can make your body do what you want it to. That is more effective than doing a specific movement in fighting.

It almost becomes a timing vs technique thing.

You may notice when you move around with a dancer or an acrobat or something that they can do these wide ranges of techniques as if by magic.

But of course it isn’t. It is trained.

So things like contact improv or ido portal stuff is starting to do the rounds.

And none of that looks realistic.

I agree with this post, except the part about not caring what the original intent was (if I've read that correctly). There are drills I know of that are only useful in context (they teach specific body principles..........if you use those body principles when doing them). Without knowing that context, continuing to use those drills is somewhat counter-productive.

You could, though, make an argument that if you don't know the intent you could ditch them - but that takes us back to trying to figure out if the intent matters. Yes, making your body move the way you want it to is always somewhat useful, but it's inefficient to do it with drills that don't further a purpose (learning to cha-cha with a good hip sway as a practice for Judo, for instance). I'm okay with inefficiency when it's caused by serving another purpose (some of the principles I study and taught aren't easily learned, so make a long path to effectiveness - but are a lot of fun to learn and play with).

 

[Anarax]

I used to want to uncover original intent of techniques behind kata movements, but after seeing the Kung fu form that supposedly is sanchin kata, or at least the forerunner of sanchin kata, and it’s similar sure but it can’t be called the same and the changes mean they’re doing very different techniques.

that and seeing the differences between how different styles, teach and do the same kata, but how dojos within the same style teach kata differently, I’ve come to realize that trying to find original intent is a chore in foolishness.

I find the question academically appealing, but as far as actually training and tying a meaning to the movements I couldn’t care less any more as long as what I’m attributing to the movements works, and is reasonably recognizable between actual use and kata depiction.

Just curious how many people here are looking for the original intent for their practical training.

Most of the instructors in the system I primarily train already have a background in something before they start training. Wrestling, Judo, Karate, Kung Fu, kickboxing, etc. The diversity of backgrounds the instructors have play a part in how it influences their movement and training methods. When students from different schools train with each other at seminars we can pick up on these subtle differences.

I've always been fascinated by martial arts history and the why/how certain styles are the way they are. I do agree that the specific searches for a technique(s) original intent does seem pointless. It also seems to cause needless debates in some martial arts communities.