8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Palmer Barr
Palmer Barr's picture
"Broken" Kata

Hello everyone! This is my first post on this forum but I have been a long time lurker. I had a question and wanted to know what you good people thought. Can a Kata be changed enough to be "broken"? I understand that there are variations between styles and sometimes they may look very visually different. But my understanding is that the core concepts usually remain the same. However in my style, which I'll choose to keep to myself but it is a Shorin Ryu Karate style, some of our Kata are quite different. For instances in our Pinan Kata movements are changed from being high to low or being completely different moves entirely. Sadly in our style we don't practice Bunkai and the "reasons" for these techniques are very "Three K Karate" which don't hold up to close scrutiny. So I've tried my hardest to use the theories and information online (like Iains app) to put the pieces together but I keep running into problems of the movements just being to different to "make sense". Could our Kata be changed enough to where the whole form now doesn't make sense with the movements?

Nimrod Nir
Nimrod Nir's picture

Palmer Barr wrote:
Could our Kata be changed enough to where the whole form now doesn't make sense with the movements?

The short answer in my opinion is yes. The kata could be changed enough to where it is "broken". This is a natural development that is expected to occur once a "style" loses the practical connection to the form. 

Examples of general widespread probable changes made to kata, making them less practical and harder to analyze: kicks higher than thigh level, athletic spinning jumps added to certain parts of kata (e.g. some versions of Kushanku), double-kick performed as a jumping kick (e.g. Kushanku), rhythm changes and long pauses in certain parts of kata, extremely dramatic slow motion moves etc. 

However, if the kata is widespread and has many variations in other "styles", you could compare your version to the other versions and conclude whether your version demonstrates a different example of the same principle, or it was simply changes for aesthetic / other non-practical reason, making the sequence "broken". This way you can potentially "get around" this problem.

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I practice Tang Soo Do.  In the process of researching bunkai, I have discovered several places where the kata developed like this:  the original kata had a step; Shotokan changed the step into a big stomp; and someone in Korea changed the stomp into a crescent kick.  Frequently this does make good bunkai harder, and it will certainly make it more difficult to recover the original bunkai.  But you have to decide whether you want to do history or pragmatism:  bunkai for the original kata, or for the one you've got.  Or a mix.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

It depends on the practitioner really. The truth is that most modern Karate styles already have kata which is "broken" to one degree or another by the addition of less-than-functional flair, movement which generally does not benefit combative applications, and sometimes a related attempt to "graft" movements or biomechancal principles from other arts onto said Kata. Some of the "grafting" works, and some of it is there simply because the Kata is being done "wrong" from a combative standpoint.

In my opinion part of modern Karate training once one reaches a significant rank involves "reverse engineering" to get rid of these kinds of changes. This is a tough proposition of and within itself, it requires some serious self-confidence to make changes, and vetting both in practice and from mentors. Obviously where your kata came from will determine just how many of these changes were made, how seriously they effect the way you move and interpret things. The Karate culture you came from will likely determine whether it's even ok for someone to do this - the degree to which one can make changes to Kata performance.

When it takes a huge conceptual leap to explain a technique or series, a bunch of super-specific movements from the opponent, or someone says "don't do it like the kata, do it like a kickboxer/wrestler etc". By defintion, the performance of the kata itself is broken, because if it is not, the Kata demonstrates both proper body mechanics -and- tactics, not just a collection of appropriate tactics with weird body mechanics e.g. over deep stances, labored stepping, etc.

This is not unique to Karate either, Chinese martial arts often have more specific move sets for forms, but they experience the same drift..in some ways it's worse too, because you have this complex two man set that appears functional, but actually breaks all kinds of common sense combative notions. So this is an issue of modernity. If an experienced teacher has to monitor say, 30 Kata for this kind of "drift", even if that teacher has solid skills, and understands the strategy underpinning the art, the chances of extracting a solid set of tactics are unlikely if they learned the forms in an entirely non-functional way. 

As an individual though, none of this stuff is unsurpassable at all, it just involves being willing to be critical as possible with your stuff, and also requires a Karate culture that doesn't rely on "sensei said so"..sadly, a rarer thing than it should be, by far. So yes, Kata can be and often are broken, once you find out where they are broken you fix them so that they match what you are actually doing (which of course, has to work well enough to justify a different performance!), but this is an issue for people who are in these situations. If it were me, I would test the waters to see if you can introduce functional Karate concepts  in your dojo. If you can't, just accept that they would prefer to train "broken" and either leave or find an informal training group with whome you can explore these things.

I have students who train in Wado-ryu as well as training with me (Goju Ryu), they continue to train some of their Wado Ryu (even though they learned no functional bunkai whatsoever for these kata) and seek out answers to application for these Kata outside their Wado Ryu circle. I encourage them and try to support them in this, particularly because when someone likes a specific Kata or feels it fits them naturally, it is often a good sign this is a Kata they could pursue in combative terms. I'm able to offer a little help occasionally with interpreting/using these kata too, even though they are not my style.

Iain, Kris Wilder, lots of others have done a lot ot change Karate culture into something more "open" that facilitates this kind of thing, but unfortunately many dojos are very resistant and prefer "but sensei says" to this kind of exploration. if you are in a place like that that won't budge, there is not much you can do. You may also have to adopt someone elses version of the Kata to make much sense of them. Ultimately if you train long enough it's all your version anyway, even if you aren't trying to personalize it.

At least today there is publicly available material on utilizing Kata combatively, I remeber groping around for this stuff in the early 90s, no real internet to find it on, a few books, but way less, and just generally far fewer people interested in anything other than "three K" Karate. So plenty of places are still a bit stuck in the past, but things have changed for the better, and you can make use of them as an individual.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Palmer,

Palmer Barr]This is my first post on this forum but I have been a long time lurker.</p> <p>Thanks for the post! The “contributor / lurker” ratio is quite high here, so thanks for coming out of the shadows :-)</p> <p>[quote=Palmer Barr wrote:
I had a question and wanted to know what you good people thought. Can a Kata be changed enough to be "broken"?

Yes, it can, BUT most are fine. Kata that have been deliberately altered for aesthetic and athletic purposes, AND were no consideration has been given to function, can be radically altered and that can see the combative message being lost. However, most traditional versions are perfectly fine. We can see alternate examples of common concepts and most often it’s nothing more than the same message in a different “font”.

Palmer Barr wrote:
I keep running into problems of the movements just being too different to "make sense". Could our Kata be changed enough to where the whole form now doesn't make sense with the movements?

Could you post a link to a video with an example? We can then chat through that specific example and try to ascertain what may be happening. If you post the link and time code to a motion or sequence you feel is significantly different, I can embed the video and I’m sure we’d all be happy to share our thoughts.

All the best,

Iain

Palmer Barr
Palmer Barr's picture

Thank you guys for the kind comments!

I can sure post a link. While this isnt the "exact" version we practice now it's almost 90% the same. 

 

For now I'm just wondering about Pinan Sho but this video has all our Pinan in it.

The first major difference is right at the beginning after the rising hands we go into a gedan uke instead of a hammer fist.

The second would be around the 1:10 mark (the Kata is sideways so you can see it more clearly), we turn and do a "double" Gedan Uke and kick.

The third would be at 1:22 we chudan uke there before the turn.

The last is at 1:26 where we gedan uke.

The rest of the Kata is of course very similar to everyone else's versions so I haven't had any issues with that. I have made a Bunkai up for the first three moves (that I'm actually very proud of) but it has them go one right after the other in sequence so I'm still iffy about its effectiveness. I have concerns with the "changed moves" so to speak because I believe they were just added in with no regard as to what the other moves in the Kata meant. So while the entire Kata may not be "broken" so to speak I feel as if it was changed for not the best reasons, if that makes sense.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Palmer,

Thanks for posting the video. I’m not familiar with the history of the style, but here are some thoughts, based solely on the kata presented, on how that version compares to the way I do it and the bunkai I teach.  

Palmer Barr wrote:
The first major difference is right at the beginning after the rising hands we go into a gedan uke instead of a hammer fist.

The final strike would be a blow to the groin. Our version of the kata has all three strikes to the jaw, which requires the third strike to move from under the enemy’s arm to over the arm. It could be someone in your lineage preferred to avoid that, such that the arm remains under and does a low strike instead.

That strikes me as entirely legit, and it’s simply a variation on a theme.

Palmer Barr wrote:
The second would be around the 1:10 mark (the Kata is sideways so you can see it more clearly), we turn and do a "double" Gedan Uke and kick.

On that one we do a single arm pull as we kick out the enemy’s leg. However, a double arm pull can have advantages (stronger, providing you’re also careful the enemy does not fall directly back on you) and many people prefer that version. Pretty nice to see that actually, as it’s further evidence that the balance break is what is doing on there.

This is an alternative expression of common principles.

Palmer Barr wrote:
The third would be at 1:22 we chudan uke there before the turn.

I see that as being pretty much the same, just using the other hand. Hit the back of the neck with the forearm and then pull on the chin to control the head (the uke) before kicking out the leg and striking / twisting the head.

Palmer Barr wrote:
The last is at 1:26 where we gedan uke.

As you know, my drills of that part does a neck crank to take the enemy over. If he’s tall and you can’t reach the head, you could hit the groin to get them to buckle at the waist. It’s seems your kata explicitly incudes that option (the additional “gedan uke”). Again, it’s just a variation on a common method.

Palmer Barr wrote:
… believe they were just added in with no regard as to what the other moves in the Kata meant

Maybe, but that’s not what I see. The movements seem to fit well to me and would seem to be entirely relevant. Knowing nothing about the style, and again based solely on what I see, it strikes me that the balance of probability points to deliberate changes that are in line with the combative lessons of the kata.

Palmer Barr wrote:
So while the entire Kata may not be "broken" so to speak I feel as if it was changed for not the best reasons, if that makes sense.

If I were to assume the role of “Dr Bunkai”, I would produce your kata to have a clean bill of health :-)

I don’t think it’s “broken” and simply expresses common ideas in a different way … which is pretty much the case with all traditional versions. Other versions are more popular, but that does not mean they are more “right”.  I think your kata are perfectly fine.

All the best,

Iain

Palmer Barr
Palmer Barr's picture

That is very helpful. Thank you! I'll have to continue my efforts to figure out our versions of these Kata. Maybe later I'll ask everyone's opinion of our other Pinan/Kata. Plus once I come up with Bunkai I'm happy with I'll try and post it here for critique. Again Thank you all.