Hi. I'd be interested in hearing from people on their views on changing the katas. I remember there was a big fight about this about 20 yrs. ago as some younger American instructors started making up their own katas. I haven't heard much about this recently, so I guess that either of two things has happened: one, the maverick instructors have continued to make up their own katas; or two, they were so stung by the conservative backlash that they've gone back to the original katas.
My own views on this have changed over the years. When this controversy first erupted, I sided with the traditionalists and laughed at the mavericks. Now however, I've come to a middle ground on this. I am all for preserving the original katas. But at the same time I am all for experienced martial artists experimenting with new forms in their art. By doing this it's possible that they might discover something new and fantastic, or, paradoxically, even rediscover old things that have been lost over the years. For example, the old Okinawan art of Te and the old Korean martial arts (if they ever existed at all - there is some evidence to suggest that there was no indigenous Korean martial art except for sumo-style wrestilng and that the current Korean arts are all adaptations of Japanese styles) have been lost over the years. Maybe by experimenting with the current Okinawan and Korean katas, someone might be able to reconstruct these lost arts.
Changing The Katas
Moderator: Available
Changing The Katas
Hi Hwrang,
An interesting topic, can one re-create old lost arts by creating new forms?
No question one can change a kata, or create a new one. But I do not see clearly how one can link that to the undocumented past, except by saying it is so.
On kata, I strongly feel change is something that is best left alone. There are so many infinite things which can be done with what is already there, there is no reason to make a change for its own sake.
On the other hand, if you spend say a quarter of a century on a form, really training and understanding what was passed to you, and with indepth understanding and a maturing body, I can accept the point where you own those techniques and can embody change for your own personal needs. Yet, ought one teach that to another, who has not gone through that lengthy metamorphsis on their own. If so is not something truly being lost.
Then, there might be change considered by a panel of long term instructors trying to address an everchanging world. Perhaps they find the need for skills the older arts do not teach. [This is just hypothetical at this point.] In such case they may consider creating a new skill set.
But, is this for the best. Consider Tai Chi, where the modern needs were addressed with the Shorter forms (the 24, 44, 48, 88). Perhaps they meet a nitch for people who have no time for serious training, or for competition, but to they meet the original needs of the art?
After a short quarter century of work on the Yang 108, I've been slowly acquiring the Yang/Wu 108. Where Wu further refined the Yang technique into more complex study. This didn't happen without tremendous study, and he didn't re-create an older art, but instead tried to evolve the technique into more advanced disciplines. I'm going to pass this point now, as I am but an egg in these studies. Perhaps in another quater century or so I'll have some idea what these words mean.
But the older Korean Hwrang arts, or the older Okinawan Te arts, separate from those schools retaining those disciplines, how does one begin to re-create the past and remain true. Pictures cannot do so..
The effort may be noble, and worthwhile, but the name will most likely remain in dispute.
As this is a Ueichi list, I respectfully remain silent on such issues as they pertain to Ueichi..
------------------
Victor Smith
An interesting topic, can one re-create old lost arts by creating new forms?
No question one can change a kata, or create a new one. But I do not see clearly how one can link that to the undocumented past, except by saying it is so.
On kata, I strongly feel change is something that is best left alone. There are so many infinite things which can be done with what is already there, there is no reason to make a change for its own sake.
On the other hand, if you spend say a quarter of a century on a form, really training and understanding what was passed to you, and with indepth understanding and a maturing body, I can accept the point where you own those techniques and can embody change for your own personal needs. Yet, ought one teach that to another, who has not gone through that lengthy metamorphsis on their own. If so is not something truly being lost.
Then, there might be change considered by a panel of long term instructors trying to address an everchanging world. Perhaps they find the need for skills the older arts do not teach. [This is just hypothetical at this point.] In such case they may consider creating a new skill set.
But, is this for the best. Consider Tai Chi, where the modern needs were addressed with the Shorter forms (the 24, 44, 48, 88). Perhaps they meet a nitch for people who have no time for serious training, or for competition, but to they meet the original needs of the art?
After a short quarter century of work on the Yang 108, I've been slowly acquiring the Yang/Wu 108. Where Wu further refined the Yang technique into more complex study. This didn't happen without tremendous study, and he didn't re-create an older art, but instead tried to evolve the technique into more advanced disciplines. I'm going to pass this point now, as I am but an egg in these studies. Perhaps in another quater century or so I'll have some idea what these words mean.
But the older Korean Hwrang arts, or the older Okinawan Te arts, separate from those schools retaining those disciplines, how does one begin to re-create the past and remain true. Pictures cannot do so..
The effort may be noble, and worthwhile, but the name will most likely remain in dispute.
As this is a Ueichi list, I respectfully remain silent on such issues as they pertain to Ueichi..
------------------
Victor Smith
Changing The Katas
Victor, as far as reconstucting the old, if you're familiar with the Okinawan katas, you'll notice that they are similar to Shaolin kung fu, but different. I think this difference is the vestiges of the old Te art. When the Okinawans learned Shaolin, rather than simply becoming kung fu experts, they incorporated elements of Te into the Shaolin forms, thereby creating something new and uniquely theirs. Similarly, the current Korean katas resemble Japanese styles, yet with a difference. I believe this difference is the vestiges of the old Korean arts, which were nearly lost after years of war and foreign occupation. By concentrating on these differences, I believe that someone could reconstruct the lost arts, much like archeologists reconstruct an entire ancient civilization using just a few pottery fragments.
As for the other question, making up your own katas, what I'd like to see is a new form, created from elements of the old katas, but something unique, like what the Okinawans created from Shaolin. Just putting bits and pieces together from karate, Shaolin, tai chi, etc. wouldn't do it (this would be immediately obvious). It would have to be an original synthesis, with martial appication, and yet aesthetically pleasing - an "art."
As for you personally, I see no reason why you, after all your years of experience, cannot strike out on your own now. Tai chi is usually done in slow motion, so there is a tendency to think of it as a unified whole of movement which can never be broken or deviated from in the slightest. By all means keep doing the original forms, but I'm sure there are parts of the forms that are more difficult for you or less pleasing to you. These are areas that I would think are open to innovation. You could change the movements in these areas so that they are easier for you to do or more pleasing to do, and then you would have your own form - something unique to you, yet grounded in the original forms.
As for the other question, making up your own katas, what I'd like to see is a new form, created from elements of the old katas, but something unique, like what the Okinawans created from Shaolin. Just putting bits and pieces together from karate, Shaolin, tai chi, etc. wouldn't do it (this would be immediately obvious). It would have to be an original synthesis, with martial appication, and yet aesthetically pleasing - an "art."
As for you personally, I see no reason why you, after all your years of experience, cannot strike out on your own now. Tai chi is usually done in slow motion, so there is a tendency to think of it as a unified whole of movement which can never be broken or deviated from in the slightest. By all means keep doing the original forms, but I'm sure there are parts of the forms that are more difficult for you or less pleasing to you. These are areas that I would think are open to innovation. You could change the movements in these areas so that they are easier for you to do or more pleasing to do, and then you would have your own form - something unique to you, yet grounded in the original forms.
Changing The Katas
Hi again Hawrang,
I guess I should have begun my discussion last time stating I'm an Isshinryu practionier (bout 28 yrs) and have widely studied the Okinawan systems, in addition to other studies and my work on Tai Chi.
I've probably studied +150 forms/kata/kune/hung for various periods of time. Whether I'm good at much is always a question, but it has been a long term hobby of mine. There is so much already in existence I still find little reason to create something new.
Can a parallel be found to Shaolin arts and the Okinawan ones? I have extremely mixed feelings about this. On rare occassions there are similiarities, yet mostly I feel that time has made to many changes in both arts and locations to clearly draw such a parallel. Everybody has their own opinion about this, and I am aware of the great efforts made especially concerning Ueichi and its Chinese roots.
I've seen incredible acrobatic workouts, Gary Michank's "Superman" kata from bout 20 years ago comes to mind as perhaps the best in that genra, yet I find little to really encourage creating new. There simply is so much already in existence, if you're really ready to pay the price and find qualified instructors. Of course that is perhaps the real issue, taking the time to study and train with those who can teach.
Now as for Tai Chi, it is done slow, it is done fast, it is done as singular posture training or section training. Frankly trying to create a custom version is more pride than necessity. Should you really need more, it would be far worth the time to try and learn a new system.
Those who did create the Chen, Yang, Wu, Wu, Sun and more, most often did so from the reason of intense effort. Certainly I could choose to try to do so, but why? Any of these systems is vast and a lifetime of study. There always is the attempt to learn another, and so forth.
BTW, in all the arts, especially tai chi, the issue isn't more or less pleasing IMVHO. The movement flows all have their functionality and that is all that is really important.
Of course, these are simply my own studies.
Victor Smith
Bushi No Te Isshinryu www.funkydragon.com/bushi
I guess I should have begun my discussion last time stating I'm an Isshinryu practionier (bout 28 yrs) and have widely studied the Okinawan systems, in addition to other studies and my work on Tai Chi.
I've probably studied +150 forms/kata/kune/hung for various periods of time. Whether I'm good at much is always a question, but it has been a long term hobby of mine. There is so much already in existence I still find little reason to create something new.
Can a parallel be found to Shaolin arts and the Okinawan ones? I have extremely mixed feelings about this. On rare occassions there are similiarities, yet mostly I feel that time has made to many changes in both arts and locations to clearly draw such a parallel. Everybody has their own opinion about this, and I am aware of the great efforts made especially concerning Ueichi and its Chinese roots.
I've seen incredible acrobatic workouts, Gary Michank's "Superman" kata from bout 20 years ago comes to mind as perhaps the best in that genra, yet I find little to really encourage creating new. There simply is so much already in existence, if you're really ready to pay the price and find qualified instructors. Of course that is perhaps the real issue, taking the time to study and train with those who can teach.
Now as for Tai Chi, it is done slow, it is done fast, it is done as singular posture training or section training. Frankly trying to create a custom version is more pride than necessity. Should you really need more, it would be far worth the time to try and learn a new system.
Those who did create the Chen, Yang, Wu, Wu, Sun and more, most often did so from the reason of intense effort. Certainly I could choose to try to do so, but why? Any of these systems is vast and a lifetime of study. There always is the attempt to learn another, and so forth.
BTW, in all the arts, especially tai chi, the issue isn't more or less pleasing IMVHO. The movement flows all have their functionality and that is all that is really important.
Of course, these are simply my own studies.
Victor Smith
Bushi No Te Isshinryu www.funkydragon.com/bushi
Changing The Katas
Victor, that was an excellent multimedia presentation. I'm surprised you're against changing katas because some of the statements in your presentation seem to get right to the heart of what I am saying.
I'm also surprised that you see no similarity between the Okinawan styles and Shaolin. To me the similarity is obvious. I once considered taking a style of kung fu, but after watching one their practice sessions I saw so many similarities between it and the karate styles that I knew that I didn't think it was worth the effort to learn it. In fact I am struck not so much by the apparent diversity in the many different styles, but by the similarity I see in all of them. Tai chi practiced slowly looks very different from karate (in fact that is the great innovation with tai chi, to practice slow rather than fast) but at normal speed it looks just like karate.
I never saw the "superman" kata, but I would think that for a new kata to become a "classic," it couldn't be just a re-presentation of existing movements. There would have to be some unique innovation, never before seen, that would make it stand out as something truly new. Some ideas: a completely new animal form with style and genuine martial application (scorpion, gamecock, deer, bear?); an complete evasion kata dedicated to hightailing it out of any situation; a form with all blocks, all strikes, or all throws (all movements in any form can be interpreted as a strike, a block, or a throw, so one could adapt existing forms to emplasize one aspect completely); etc.
I think you can guess that I have made up my own forms. In my case it has been a revelation. I've learned more from doing this than I learned from doing the original katas. And I don't think this was an ego thing.
I'm also surprised that you see no similarity between the Okinawan styles and Shaolin. To me the similarity is obvious. I once considered taking a style of kung fu, but after watching one their practice sessions I saw so many similarities between it and the karate styles that I knew that I didn't think it was worth the effort to learn it. In fact I am struck not so much by the apparent diversity in the many different styles, but by the similarity I see in all of them. Tai chi practiced slowly looks very different from karate (in fact that is the great innovation with tai chi, to practice slow rather than fast) but at normal speed it looks just like karate.
I never saw the "superman" kata, but I would think that for a new kata to become a "classic," it couldn't be just a re-presentation of existing movements. There would have to be some unique innovation, never before seen, that would make it stand out as something truly new. Some ideas: a completely new animal form with style and genuine martial application (scorpion, gamecock, deer, bear?); an complete evasion kata dedicated to hightailing it out of any situation; a form with all blocks, all strikes, or all throws (all movements in any form can be interpreted as a strike, a block, or a throw, so one could adapt existing forms to emplasize one aspect completely); etc.
I think you can guess that I have made up my own forms. In my case it has been a revelation. I've learned more from doing this than I learned from doing the original katas. And I don't think this was an ego thing.
Changing The Katas
Day' Hwarang,
Am I against changing kata? Hmmm, on the whole yes. Change does and will happen however for various reasons. But train sometime with somebody who's spent 40 years trying to understand the application potential of their system. For example Sherman Harrill of Carson City Iowa can take any movement in the Isshinryu system and spend hours and hours showing you different applications without changing anything. The potential applications are already so vast creating something new really has little relevance.
In my experience, change most likely has more to do with a differeing perception. Popular knowledge has the founder of Isshinryu changing his teachers kata to make the system more effective. On the other hand when I did a study of Shimabuku Tatsuo's teachers, almost all of his changes came from their teachings.
He then choose to take his studies and create his own form, SunNuSu, one I practice today, for his own reasons feeling that contributed something new. Fine for him.
For myself, perhaps I've studied a wider range of material, but I'm not of the opinion change really is necessary. The times are different, source material and instructors are avaialble today that never were in the past.
For example you feel a driving reason to add acrobatics into your martial art. Why try and re-invent the wheel. Study some of the Chinese systems which include incredible acrobatics already.
Now as for Shaolin being a pre-cursor of karate.... his is a vast and debatable topic. First Shaolin is not a simple definible system, there are vast numbers of Chinese systems related to that name. I've tasted a bit of Chinese forms and my instructor, Ernest Rothrock, is unqualifiably deeper into Chinese systems.
There are parallels to the Okinawan arts in China. But, I'm still unconvinced anyone can really show the parallels to most of the Okinawan arts. I'll grant you Ueichi, the newest Chinese import, has the clearer case, but for almost all the rest of the assertions, it requires a vast jump of faith, that could be cured if somebody could produce 'Chinese' source forms.
The efforts I've seen to date, while interesting do not necessarily prove the connection. Again that's a matter of opinion. In my own case, it neither adds or detracts from my own study. Simply, I'm looking for stronger proof than what I've seen to date.
Any existing form has so much potential. The unlimited application potential, deeper understanding of the movement principles, the use of those principles as a weapon itself, the unending goal of trying to perfect the kata, increasing one's energy in the process, and then moving that energy into the application process.
Such goals to me are more than enough. Of course I've tasted a bit of what's out there too. To take the time to create something 'new' will detract from what time I have to work on what I've already acquired.
But I do understand a bit of the process. Once, I concluded an analytical study of creating a system (and attendant form) to handle any attack. I chose to use one consisting of 4 1/2 moves, and created a form using them too. It was worth the while looking into the concept of a 'minimalist system'. And while I fully accept what I created, it still did not give me reason to continue either.
Creation can be a revelation. On the other hand long term practice, correct practice, can be revealing too.
------------------
Victor Smith
Am I against changing kata? Hmmm, on the whole yes. Change does and will happen however for various reasons. But train sometime with somebody who's spent 40 years trying to understand the application potential of their system. For example Sherman Harrill of Carson City Iowa can take any movement in the Isshinryu system and spend hours and hours showing you different applications without changing anything. The potential applications are already so vast creating something new really has little relevance.
In my experience, change most likely has more to do with a differeing perception. Popular knowledge has the founder of Isshinryu changing his teachers kata to make the system more effective. On the other hand when I did a study of Shimabuku Tatsuo's teachers, almost all of his changes came from their teachings.
He then choose to take his studies and create his own form, SunNuSu, one I practice today, for his own reasons feeling that contributed something new. Fine for him.
For myself, perhaps I've studied a wider range of material, but I'm not of the opinion change really is necessary. The times are different, source material and instructors are avaialble today that never were in the past.
For example you feel a driving reason to add acrobatics into your martial art. Why try and re-invent the wheel. Study some of the Chinese systems which include incredible acrobatics already.
Now as for Shaolin being a pre-cursor of karate.... his is a vast and debatable topic. First Shaolin is not a simple definible system, there are vast numbers of Chinese systems related to that name. I've tasted a bit of Chinese forms and my instructor, Ernest Rothrock, is unqualifiably deeper into Chinese systems.
There are parallels to the Okinawan arts in China. But, I'm still unconvinced anyone can really show the parallels to most of the Okinawan arts. I'll grant you Ueichi, the newest Chinese import, has the clearer case, but for almost all the rest of the assertions, it requires a vast jump of faith, that could be cured if somebody could produce 'Chinese' source forms.
The efforts I've seen to date, while interesting do not necessarily prove the connection. Again that's a matter of opinion. In my own case, it neither adds or detracts from my own study. Simply, I'm looking for stronger proof than what I've seen to date.
Any existing form has so much potential. The unlimited application potential, deeper understanding of the movement principles, the use of those principles as a weapon itself, the unending goal of trying to perfect the kata, increasing one's energy in the process, and then moving that energy into the application process.
Such goals to me are more than enough. Of course I've tasted a bit of what's out there too. To take the time to create something 'new' will detract from what time I have to work on what I've already acquired.
But I do understand a bit of the process. Once, I concluded an analytical study of creating a system (and attendant form) to handle any attack. I chose to use one consisting of 4 1/2 moves, and created a form using them too. It was worth the while looking into the concept of a 'minimalist system'. And while I fully accept what I created, it still did not give me reason to continue either.
Creation can be a revelation. On the other hand long term practice, correct practice, can be revealing too.
------------------
Victor Smith
-
Allen M.
Changing The Katas
Hi Hwarang. I wonder how anyone can rediscover lost arts without actually getting inside the head of the original creators of those kata.
I’ve been in the middle of a number of Taekwondo form changes over the past 20 years, and all I can say is it is politically driven as well as often leads to a watering-down of the system. In both theWTF and ATA, I remember having to dump the entire set of forms for a different newly created set. I have deep-seated complex feelings and opinions about poomse changes in TKD, not much of them are accompanied by rays of sunshine.
Contrast Uechi against TKD in the forms arena momentarily. Good Uechika the world over place much of their salt in kata all the way from day one while TKDists, at least in the States, learn the next hyung (kata) for the sole purpose of getting their next stripe or belt. Talk about confusion reigning in the masses, will you. That’s ok because Uechi is a kata-based style whereas TKD is a kicking-based style. In all the Uechi kata I can develop internal feelings of projecting power, or of “chi” if I am so brave to use that word. In all of TKD kata, I could get those feelings in only one poomse.
Completely different philosophy.
I can draw a strong parallelism to what I have been learning from Van Canna in terms of the TC concepts to the teachings of the founder of TKD. While their’s (TKD) has much substance and have the right idea, the TC concept is the most complete, taking generation of upper body power to new heights using the entire body to do so.
What is is boiling down to, in many – but not all – ways is that it is not the kata that matters, but the delivery of what’s inside the kata. If kata is shallow either by design or by implementation, or by both, then that is what the student learns and can give back, whether it was created yesterday or 1000 years ago.
Most karateka, after they have had an amount of training, can make up their own kata. This is good because it is them on the inside exposing their mind, heart, and ability to the outside.
Victor, Ernest Rothrock. Is he from Pennsylvania? I worked in Pittsburgh a few years ago for a short time, and Rothrock dojos are all over the place down there.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
I’ve been in the middle of a number of Taekwondo form changes over the past 20 years, and all I can say is it is politically driven as well as often leads to a watering-down of the system. In both theWTF and ATA, I remember having to dump the entire set of forms for a different newly created set. I have deep-seated complex feelings and opinions about poomse changes in TKD, not much of them are accompanied by rays of sunshine.
Contrast Uechi against TKD in the forms arena momentarily. Good Uechika the world over place much of their salt in kata all the way from day one while TKDists, at least in the States, learn the next hyung (kata) for the sole purpose of getting their next stripe or belt. Talk about confusion reigning in the masses, will you. That’s ok because Uechi is a kata-based style whereas TKD is a kicking-based style. In all the Uechi kata I can develop internal feelings of projecting power, or of “chi” if I am so brave to use that word. In all of TKD kata, I could get those feelings in only one poomse.
Completely different philosophy.
I can draw a strong parallelism to what I have been learning from Van Canna in terms of the TC concepts to the teachings of the founder of TKD. While their’s (TKD) has much substance and have the right idea, the TC concept is the most complete, taking generation of upper body power to new heights using the entire body to do so.
What is is boiling down to, in many – but not all – ways is that it is not the kata that matters, but the delivery of what’s inside the kata. If kata is shallow either by design or by implementation, or by both, then that is what the student learns and can give back, whether it was created yesterday or 1000 years ago.
Most karateka, after they have had an amount of training, can make up their own kata. This is good because it is them on the inside exposing their mind, heart, and ability to the outside.
Victor, Ernest Rothrock. Is he from Pennsylvania? I worked in Pittsburgh a few years ago for a short time, and Rothrock dojos are all over the place down there.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
Changing The Katas
Why would you want to change a kata?
To be more practical for our culture?
To be more "flashy"?
To suit your body type better?
Every kata I see done seems to be a little different from the way I was taught - reflecting the personality and physicality of the doer. And this includes my students. What I want to see from them is their best rendition of what I taught them, not a perfect copy or clone of me.
So I expect to see "drift" in the arts through the years.
My opinion about changes for 'flash" need not be expressed.
As for cultural imperatives, I've often wondered about changing some, not all, of the lunge punches to reverse punches....the kata seem to be over stocked with oi tsuki and short on gyaku tsuki. And do we need quite so many turns that go 270° to teach that set of applications?
But, as of yet, I have changed nothing.
------------------
The Fighting Old Man
To be more practical for our culture?
To be more "flashy"?
To suit your body type better?
Every kata I see done seems to be a little different from the way I was taught - reflecting the personality and physicality of the doer. And this includes my students. What I want to see from them is their best rendition of what I taught them, not a perfect copy or clone of me.
So I expect to see "drift" in the arts through the years.
My opinion about changes for 'flash" need not be expressed.
As for cultural imperatives, I've often wondered about changing some, not all, of the lunge punches to reverse punches....the kata seem to be over stocked with oi tsuki and short on gyaku tsuki. And do we need quite so many turns that go 270° to teach that set of applications?
But, as of yet, I have changed nothing.
------------------
The Fighting Old Man
Changing The Katas
Victor, I still can't comprehend that you see no obvious similarity between Okinawan styles and Shaolin. On Fri. I was in Waldenbooks and was glancing through a new book on Wing Chun, by Ip Man, a disciple of Yip Man, and in the book they give a complete description of the beginning Wing Chun forms. To my eye they look very similar to the Tekki or Naihanshi forms of karate. As for the source form for the Chinese arts, I think it is generally agreed that it is the Indian martial arts. To be brief, there were no martial arts in Asia except for wrestling until Buddhist monks brought Indian martial arts to China, where they underwent an explosion of creative adaptation. From China the arts then spread to Japan, Okinawa, and Korea. I've seen some rare footage of Indian martial arts on TV, and I see the familiar movements of karate in them. I'd be very interested in a description of the form you developed. Perhaps you could describe it in a post since it is only 4 movements long.
Allen, I believe that it is possible to recreate lost arts from existing ones. Linguistics experts can recreate a long lost language out of a few fragmentary words and phrases and a related living language. I think the same process could be used in the martial arts.
Sochin, what drove me to start making up my own forms was exactly the 3 reasons you mention: practicality, "flash," and body type. I have an unusual gangly build that is probably unsuited to my favorite style, which was probably developed by persons who were were more compactly built. I find that I am uncomfortable doing certain movements in the original katas. I therefore selected only those movements which seemed to fit me best.
I also thought that many of the movements were "not practical," so I eliminated those also.
And, I am of the opinion that martial arts should also be "fun." And one way to make it fun is to put a little flash in the kata. I therefore selected some of the more "flashy" movements to round out my original kata.
So when I do my own kata, it is comfortable to do; it is "practical," and it is also "fun." And I put a lot of research and consideration into this. It took me more than 10 years to put together my own kata, and it is still a work in progress.
I don't see why you can't change punches to other kinds of strikes. If a person likes kicks, or palms strikes, etc., why not (carefully) tailor an existing form to accommodate what a person likes best?
Allen, I believe that it is possible to recreate lost arts from existing ones. Linguistics experts can recreate a long lost language out of a few fragmentary words and phrases and a related living language. I think the same process could be used in the martial arts.
Sochin, what drove me to start making up my own forms was exactly the 3 reasons you mention: practicality, "flash," and body type. I have an unusual gangly build that is probably unsuited to my favorite style, which was probably developed by persons who were were more compactly built. I find that I am uncomfortable doing certain movements in the original katas. I therefore selected only those movements which seemed to fit me best.
I also thought that many of the movements were "not practical," so I eliminated those also.
And, I am of the opinion that martial arts should also be "fun." And one way to make it fun is to put a little flash in the kata. I therefore selected some of the more "flashy" movements to round out my original kata.
So when I do my own kata, it is comfortable to do; it is "practical," and it is also "fun." And I put a lot of research and consideration into this. It took me more than 10 years to put together my own kata, and it is still a work in progress.
I don't see why you can't change punches to other kinds of strikes. If a person likes kicks, or palms strikes, etc., why not (carefully) tailor an existing form to accommodate what a person likes best?
Changing The Katas
Well Hawrang, you certainly are not alone in your opinions regarding changing forms. On the other hand, those of us who find infinite insight in tradition are not likely to be swayed.
Regarding the Chinese Origins of Karate, I strongly urge you to do more than look at two dimensional pictures in a book. There is too much not covered there. Finding some similarity in some forms and then trying to expand that to cover the entire source of the Okinawan arts, might be a popular pasttime, but to re-iterate, I'm still wating for more positive source forms.
Regarding your statement, "As for the source form for the Chinese arts, I think it is generally agreed that it is the Indian martial arts. To be brief, there were no martial arts in Asia except for wrestling until Buddhist monks brought Indian martial arts to China, where they underwent an explosion of creative adaptation." I believe you will have to produce docuementation suporting such claims.
Actually it is widely known the Chinese had martial arts long before Bodhidharma moved into China. Unfortunately, too many conversational stories which sounded like they could have happened, are the source of your contentions. Similarly the Chinese martial practices expand wide further than Shaolin. WuDan Mountain, family systems, Tibetian systems to quickly name a few. The reality is much vaster than a simple story.
Therein is the rub, to simply take a story and make it reality doesn't make it real.
Unfortunately there are so many bad information sources on the Martial Arts, and I've personally read too many of them over the decades, that it is really difficult to accept any source anymore, without indepth study of it, too.
In closing, accepting you feel the need to florish your form technique, can you give us an example why and where you find this necessary? Are you simply seeing the martial artsl as a performance art, or as a personal statement of feeling?
That is most likely the source of our questioning you, at least from my perspective where I am most intersted in the "Martial"
Continue the quest,
Victor Smith
Bushi No Te Isshinryu
Regarding the Chinese Origins of Karate, I strongly urge you to do more than look at two dimensional pictures in a book. There is too much not covered there. Finding some similarity in some forms and then trying to expand that to cover the entire source of the Okinawan arts, might be a popular pasttime, but to re-iterate, I'm still wating for more positive source forms.
Regarding your statement, "As for the source form for the Chinese arts, I think it is generally agreed that it is the Indian martial arts. To be brief, there were no martial arts in Asia except for wrestling until Buddhist monks brought Indian martial arts to China, where they underwent an explosion of creative adaptation." I believe you will have to produce docuementation suporting such claims.
Actually it is widely known the Chinese had martial arts long before Bodhidharma moved into China. Unfortunately, too many conversational stories which sounded like they could have happened, are the source of your contentions. Similarly the Chinese martial practices expand wide further than Shaolin. WuDan Mountain, family systems, Tibetian systems to quickly name a few. The reality is much vaster than a simple story.
Therein is the rub, to simply take a story and make it reality doesn't make it real.
Unfortunately there are so many bad information sources on the Martial Arts, and I've personally read too many of them over the decades, that it is really difficult to accept any source anymore, without indepth study of it, too.
In closing, accepting you feel the need to florish your form technique, can you give us an example why and where you find this necessary? Are you simply seeing the martial artsl as a performance art, or as a personal statement of feeling?
That is most likely the source of our questioning you, at least from my perspective where I am most intersted in the "Martial"
Continue the quest,
Victor Smith
Bushi No Te Isshinryu
Changing The Katas
Victor, it's interesting how we perceive martial arts so differently. You see infinite variety in the many different styles, while I see the same old blocks and punches repackaged in different ways.
You're right I've deemphasized the "martial" in martial arts and concentrated on the "art" part of it. This is because I think the art is sorely in need of something new, or it will eventually start to stagnate as an art, like the classical music field, where they are playing the same old classics over and over. That 's why I'd really like to see someone come up with a completely new kata, good enough to take its place along side the classics.
And you also have a point implying that my invented kata might be worthless from the martial aspect. However, another reason that I made up my own is that I felt the same way about the original katas. After years of practicing them over and over I got the feeling that they weren't doing me any good, that I was not making major progress. On the contrary I think my made up kata might be "better" than the originals because I've stripped out the "best" techniques from 5 or more katas and condensed them into one short kata. It always bothered me that there might be just one seemingly good technique in a kata and then a whole series of repeditive elementary blocks and kicks for the remainder of the form, which seemed to me just "useless" "busy work." Why bother with all of that "useless" stuff?
But I'll never know for sure unless I have to put the art to use. But really, though, what is the chance of a martial artist ever having to use his art? You probably have more chance of being attacked by space aliens than of ever being put in a situation where you had to use your art, unless you go out of your way to look for trouble in waterfront dives or biker bars.
I've never used karate in a fight. I've never been threatened with a gun or a knife or by a gang of thugs (well, once by a gang of inept "thugs," but a security guard arrived before anything could happen; the whole scene was more funny than threatening). And anyway as a trained martial artist you're supposed to go out of your way to avoid confrontation, run from it even. Using your art on an obnoxious drunk would be inexcusable, no matter how obnoxious he was.
You're right I've deemphasized the "martial" in martial arts and concentrated on the "art" part of it. This is because I think the art is sorely in need of something new, or it will eventually start to stagnate as an art, like the classical music field, where they are playing the same old classics over and over. That 's why I'd really like to see someone come up with a completely new kata, good enough to take its place along side the classics.
And you also have a point implying that my invented kata might be worthless from the martial aspect. However, another reason that I made up my own is that I felt the same way about the original katas. After years of practicing them over and over I got the feeling that they weren't doing me any good, that I was not making major progress. On the contrary I think my made up kata might be "better" than the originals because I've stripped out the "best" techniques from 5 or more katas and condensed them into one short kata. It always bothered me that there might be just one seemingly good technique in a kata and then a whole series of repeditive elementary blocks and kicks for the remainder of the form, which seemed to me just "useless" "busy work." Why bother with all of that "useless" stuff?
But I'll never know for sure unless I have to put the art to use. But really, though, what is the chance of a martial artist ever having to use his art? You probably have more chance of being attacked by space aliens than of ever being put in a situation where you had to use your art, unless you go out of your way to look for trouble in waterfront dives or biker bars.
I've never used karate in a fight. I've never been threatened with a gun or a knife or by a gang of thugs (well, once by a gang of inept "thugs," but a security guard arrived before anything could happen; the whole scene was more funny than threatening). And anyway as a trained martial artist you're supposed to go out of your way to avoid confrontation, run from it even. Using your art on an obnoxious drunk would be inexcusable, no matter how obnoxious he was.
Changing The Katas
Hi Allen,
Yes, Ernest Rothrock is in the Pittsburgh area and has several schools there, although in Chinese I believe the term would be Kwoon not dojo? His schools are listed at www.yingjowpai.net for your convenience.
Victor
Yes, Ernest Rothrock is in the Pittsburgh area and has several schools there, although in Chinese I believe the term would be Kwoon not dojo? His schools are listed at www.yingjowpai.net for your convenience.
Victor
-
Colin 8 of 8
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Portsmouth Hampshire UK
Changing The Katas
New kata should always be constructed. Ancient kata should never be replaced.
Victor/hwarang
In unarmed MA we are all using the same weapon. It is inevitable that there will be similarities between systems.
Colin 8 of 8
------------------
My name is Colin 8 of 8, I am very much alive, and intend to stay that way.
Victor/hwarang
In unarmed MA we are all using the same weapon. It is inevitable that there will be similarities between systems.
Colin 8 of 8
------------------
My name is Colin 8 of 8, I am very much alive, and intend to stay that way.
Changing The Katas
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin 8 of 8:
New kata should always be constructed. Ancient kata should never be replaced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is probably one of the reasons I've learned so many darned kata... In one regard, I enjoy learning all the different kata, but in another, I gotta tell you that I don't need to memorize a couple of dozen kata to know the body mechanics of a gyaku-tsuki, mae geri, or sanchin dachi. ifyouknowhatimean...
New kata should always be constructed. Ancient kata should never be replaced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is probably one of the reasons I've learned so many darned kata... In one regard, I enjoy learning all the different kata, but in another, I gotta tell you that I don't need to memorize a couple of dozen kata to know the body mechanics of a gyaku-tsuki, mae geri, or sanchin dachi. ifyouknowhatimean...
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Changing The Katas
I really like the music analogy. With that in mind, I want to throw in a few items to ponder. One of the more revealing aspects of forms study came from two different "modern" practitioners that come from the Fuzhou region of PRC.
One was a crane form practitioner that I observed at a summer camp on Thompson Island in the 1980s. I have many fond memories of working with him and a tiger practitioner - right down to how we would try to sneak them off the island for ice cream just to aggravate the Communist party official there to watch over them.
Anyhow, this crane fellow taught us all a rather esoteric crane form. It seemed quite primitive in that it was more crane-like than customized for human movement. Now when he taught us the form, he did a skeleton one. But when he would demonstrate the form, he did something much more complex. Furthermore, he did it differently each time he did the form.
I have also been working on a suparinpei form from a different group of folks near Fuzhou. Simon Lailey, the fellow who learned it, said he thought they were jerking his chain when he went back months later and the form had changed, or when he saw different people doing the form in unique ways. The old master would just nod and watch, and only get up to correct when a particular element of form bothered him
It's very much like watching a jazz band or maybe the Grateful Dead playing a piece - never the same each time. It seems that the ultimate expression of a form for some is being SO good at the fundamentals that one can improvise on the spot. And isn't that what a fight is all about? I can't pretend to be so good that I can play a piece of music differently each time (while maintaining the theme) or change my kata drastically each time I do it. But I have indeed been experimenting with different WAYS of doing the same movements - mostly in the transitions. And I truly believe that if you were to film great masters, that you would see different aspects of their art emphasized at different points in their respective lives.
I think preservation and documentation of history is a good thing. I think the Japanese, Okinawans, and Koreans have been very good at documenting and perfecting...something. But what is it that we are trying to preserve after all? Think about it.
On the choreography end of things, I have choreographed one form myself. It was out of necessity. I wanted my students to understand how to defend against TKD, and so I needed first to teach them how to kick. So I created from scratch out of necessity. The experiment served me well, and the piece I choreographed is forever preserved (as pretty much a classroom exercise). I've also choreographed partner routines to expand my students' awareness of applications. Again...it was not done for ego, but to fulfill a need.
- Bill
One was a crane form practitioner that I observed at a summer camp on Thompson Island in the 1980s. I have many fond memories of working with him and a tiger practitioner - right down to how we would try to sneak them off the island for ice cream just to aggravate the Communist party official there to watch over them.
Anyhow, this crane fellow taught us all a rather esoteric crane form. It seemed quite primitive in that it was more crane-like than customized for human movement. Now when he taught us the form, he did a skeleton one. But when he would demonstrate the form, he did something much more complex. Furthermore, he did it differently each time he did the form.I have also been working on a suparinpei form from a different group of folks near Fuzhou. Simon Lailey, the fellow who learned it, said he thought they were jerking his chain when he went back months later and the form had changed, or when he saw different people doing the form in unique ways. The old master would just nod and watch, and only get up to correct when a particular element of form bothered him
It's very much like watching a jazz band or maybe the Grateful Dead playing a piece - never the same each time. It seems that the ultimate expression of a form for some is being SO good at the fundamentals that one can improvise on the spot. And isn't that what a fight is all about? I can't pretend to be so good that I can play a piece of music differently each time (while maintaining the theme) or change my kata drastically each time I do it. But I have indeed been experimenting with different WAYS of doing the same movements - mostly in the transitions. And I truly believe that if you were to film great masters, that you would see different aspects of their art emphasized at different points in their respective lives.
I think preservation and documentation of history is a good thing. I think the Japanese, Okinawans, and Koreans have been very good at documenting and perfecting...something. But what is it that we are trying to preserve after all? Think about it.
On the choreography end of things, I have choreographed one form myself. It was out of necessity. I wanted my students to understand how to defend against TKD, and so I needed first to teach them how to kick. So I created from scratch out of necessity. The experiment served me well, and the piece I choreographed is forever preserved (as pretty much a classroom exercise). I've also choreographed partner routines to expand my students' awareness of applications. Again...it was not done for ego, but to fulfill a need.
- Bill
