Kata variations within the dojo
This post is related to, but is not a direct follow-on from the previous post on the original kata.
In my school, and within its parent tradition, many of the kata have different variations. For instance, in the kata Saifa, there are two different starts, two different ways to do the first section and two variants on the turn/sweep/hammerfist that are not only different from each other, but from other traditions as well. Similar (accepted and taught) alternate variations exist in sanseru, shisochin, suparinpei, kururunfa, sepai, and seienchin. Some of these kata have only one or two minor alternatives, others have more, with varying degrees of difference.
Why? And what does it mean for understanding the origins and purpose of kata?
There are obvious advantages pedagogically for teaching only one version of a kata, particularly to large groups of individuals. Having a standard approach for everyone and every time makes it easier for the instructor to not only demonstrate to the class, but to delegate instruction, as regardless of the person teaching the students will be receiving the same information. When the solo form of the kata is taught first, having a standard version is very useful. Our school, as with most others, have a standard version that everyone learns at first. Especially when starting a new kata, having multiple ways to perform it can cause confusion. In organisations with multiple dojos and instructors, a standardised form has advantages when students move from one dojo to another.
What then, are the disadvantages? The big risk of standardisation is the loss of information - if we accept that each individual is different in body shape, then each person may perform a certain movement in a slightly different way to gain the same effect. By standardising to a single way of holding the body, there is the risk that the shape for one person will now be applied to all, losing the intent of the movement.
The other big risk with standardisation relates to whether the kata was intended to record specific technique sequences, or record combative principles. If the former, then standardisation to a single form is not a problem. But if the latter, then standardisation has the potential to limit the ability of the student to conceptualise (and therefore practice) these principles by ignoring the differences between the structure of different individuals' bodies, or their bodies in relation to that of their opponent's.
Additionally, how and why the kata is standardised can negatively impact on the kata - for competition, for ease of teaching (in the sense that difficult, but important movements are made easier to do, but are neutered in the process), through forgetfulness, due to incomplete transmission or to make all kata within a school conform to the same principles. So there can be downsides to only doing kata one way.
What then, might are the implications of having multiple variations in any given kata? Having one standard form implies that it is the one true way (within the paradigm of the school/organisation) to perform that kata. With multiple variations, which is the one true way? Is it the one that is taught first, or is it one of the less-frequently taught variants? Is the last one that is taught the true version, or are they all true and equal? A corollary of this line of thought is that having multiple in-style variations of a kata implies that kata originally had multiple variations, and that standardisation of kata only happened later, with the move to teaching larger groups rather than individual instruction.
If that was actually the case (and even if it is not - if a school has current variations, it doesn't matter from a functional point of view whether they had always been there or not), then what is the point of having and retaining multiple variations? To my mind, there are several.
1/ Some movements/sequences in kata are broad templates which can be applied to a variety of attacks and situations. Variations can account for different entries/attacks or for differences in the relative heights/strengths of the attacker and defender
2/ Some sequences in kata provide and entry and then the 'meat' of the technique. Variations can provide alternate entries to the same 'meat'. Similarly, there may be one entry and variations for different follow-ups.
3/ Some principles of movement required/trained by the kata can be better isolated and focused on with certain variations or sub-routines.
4/ If the original intent of the kata movements have been lost, one use of kata is to 'map' known techniques on to the movements of the kata and use the kata as an aide-memoire. As new techniques have been learned/gathered over time and with generations of transmission, variations may occur that reflect this accretion via mapping.
5/ Depending on the particular method of power generation being utilised, variants can emphasise sequences differently in both timing and form of the techniques.
6/ Kata are not a linear step-by-step recording of a fight. Depending on where each movement is in relation to the other movements in the kata, they may represent an entry, a middle or an exit from an application. This can give rise to different variations depending on which applications are being emphasised and where each movement fits within it.
In my school, and within its parent tradition, many of the kata have different variations. For instance, in the kata Saifa, there are two different starts, two different ways to do the first section and two variants on the turn/sweep/hammerfist that are not only different from each other, but from other traditions as well. Similar (accepted and taught) alternate variations exist in sanseru, shisochin, suparinpei, kururunfa, sepai, and seienchin. Some of these kata have only one or two minor alternatives, others have more, with varying degrees of difference.
Why? And what does it mean for understanding the origins and purpose of kata?
There are obvious advantages pedagogically for teaching only one version of a kata, particularly to large groups of individuals. Having a standard approach for everyone and every time makes it easier for the instructor to not only demonstrate to the class, but to delegate instruction, as regardless of the person teaching the students will be receiving the same information. When the solo form of the kata is taught first, having a standard version is very useful. Our school, as with most others, have a standard version that everyone learns at first. Especially when starting a new kata, having multiple ways to perform it can cause confusion. In organisations with multiple dojos and instructors, a standardised form has advantages when students move from one dojo to another.
What then, are the disadvantages? The big risk of standardisation is the loss of information - if we accept that each individual is different in body shape, then each person may perform a certain movement in a slightly different way to gain the same effect. By standardising to a single way of holding the body, there is the risk that the shape for one person will now be applied to all, losing the intent of the movement.
The other big risk with standardisation relates to whether the kata was intended to record specific technique sequences, or record combative principles. If the former, then standardisation to a single form is not a problem. But if the latter, then standardisation has the potential to limit the ability of the student to conceptualise (and therefore practice) these principles by ignoring the differences between the structure of different individuals' bodies, or their bodies in relation to that of their opponent's.
Additionally, how and why the kata is standardised can negatively impact on the kata - for competition, for ease of teaching (in the sense that difficult, but important movements are made easier to do, but are neutered in the process), through forgetfulness, due to incomplete transmission or to make all kata within a school conform to the same principles. So there can be downsides to only doing kata one way.
What then, might are the implications of having multiple variations in any given kata? Having one standard form implies that it is the one true way (within the paradigm of the school/organisation) to perform that kata. With multiple variations, which is the one true way? Is it the one that is taught first, or is it one of the less-frequently taught variants? Is the last one that is taught the true version, or are they all true and equal? A corollary of this line of thought is that having multiple in-style variations of a kata implies that kata originally had multiple variations, and that standardisation of kata only happened later, with the move to teaching larger groups rather than individual instruction.
If that was actually the case (and even if it is not - if a school has current variations, it doesn't matter from a functional point of view whether they had always been there or not), then what is the point of having and retaining multiple variations? To my mind, there are several.
1/ Some movements/sequences in kata are broad templates which can be applied to a variety of attacks and situations. Variations can account for different entries/attacks or for differences in the relative heights/strengths of the attacker and defender
2/ Some sequences in kata provide and entry and then the 'meat' of the technique. Variations can provide alternate entries to the same 'meat'. Similarly, there may be one entry and variations for different follow-ups.
3/ Some principles of movement required/trained by the kata can be better isolated and focused on with certain variations or sub-routines.
4/ If the original intent of the kata movements have been lost, one use of kata is to 'map' known techniques on to the movements of the kata and use the kata as an aide-memoire. As new techniques have been learned/gathered over time and with generations of transmission, variations may occur that reflect this accretion via mapping.
5/ Depending on the particular method of power generation being utilised, variants can emphasise sequences differently in both timing and form of the techniques.
6/ Kata are not a linear step-by-step recording of a fight. Depending on where each movement is in relation to the other movements in the kata, they may represent an entry, a middle or an exit from an application. This can give rise to different variations depending on which applications are being emphasised and where each movement fits within it.
Comments
Post a Comment