Change

Every known thing changes. The climate, a government, a business, a mountain range a family or anything else, the one undeniable constant is that at no time do they stand still. The complex organism that is the human being and everything supporting it is subject to the most recognisable change of all, the cycle of birth, death and rebirth and it seems that everything else behaves the same way.

On a far more practical level, change is perceived simply as development over given periods of time. An example is JKA Kata. Apart from differences in interpretation, the Kata are always developing. Occasional small changes can be unnoticeable, but viewed over longer periods the net effect of much small change can and does make Kata appear radically different.

We know that the forms practised in Japan 70 years ago are very different to what we are doing today. Without going into detail, stances these days are longer and the fighting range of the performer is far greater. Since that time there have been many changes and at present we see in our Kata the accumulated input of JKA seniors who themselves have changed with time to the extent that what they did years ago can be called an earlier version of the same thing.

Change usually comes in increments and sweeping changes are rare, but why does Kata change at all? It may be simply that one instructors' interpretation is different to another's. Some instructors go very deeply into the finest detail of their Tokui (favourite) Kata and through this process of research, begin to express the Kata in a unique way. So much so that distinct modifications appear which are naturally passed onto students.

Initiating such change, however is the prerogative of a few people who have developed their Karate to the extent that, by seniority they are qualified to do so. In the JKA system, there is a process in place to instigate change via a Technical Committee. The change must then be implemented globally and importantly it must be dispensed through the proper channels.

In Australia, as in most JKAWF affiliates, the Chief Instructor and technical head, is the focal point and the group's connection to world headquarters in Japan. As a member of the Nihon Karate Kyokai Shihan Kai and a highly qualified Karate master, he alone is the agent for change in this country. Any new training developments or alterations to practice methods that affect the membership are a matter for the Chief Instructor and his nominated people to deal with. Approved changes are then filtered through to students in the Dojo.

Some leading JKA instructors have chosen to stick closely to what they originally learned (often upon graduating from the Kyokai Instructors Program), rather than be subject to the constant cycle of change. The result of this is that the Kata they practice can look old fashioned stacked up against later versions. Whether that is right or wrong, they have the advantage of being able to repeat their unchanged "version" over a longer period, which in itself must make what they do more effective.

This being the case, if a student, an instructor or an entire group practices an earlier version of Kata that others regard as old, is it wrong? To answer that, we need to decide if we are talking about sudden change, which has come about as the result of an error being discovered or incremental change, which has come through refinement in the practice of very senior people. In any case, change should always correlate with improvement, otherwise why do it? In other words, unless there is an advantage to be gained in doing things differently, why do it at all?

There is a good analogy in business that says, whatever can give a competitive edge will be taken on board. On a first time visit to a prospective customer, a Salesperson stops to read a message on the door of the person he is visiting. It says….

"If your company's product or service will make an immediate
and positive impact on my company's bottom line, welcome.
Otherwise you are wasting my time and yours."

Likewise in Karate, if a change comes along that gives a clear combat advantage, then it is a good development and one that should be embraced.

Master Nakayama in his time as Chief Instructor of the JKA seemed to use this as his criterion for establishing the guidelines for the ongoing development of Kata. If it worked better or represented a clear improvement, it was integrated. The Nakayama era was one of moderate change and refinement characterised by a clear focus on constant repetitive training. As a result, in over 50 years of JKA Karate, dramatic changes in Kata have been rare indeed.

In the case of Kumite, we can see the effect of fighting strategies or waza that have developed over time being used in a practical sense. If a Karateka tries something new and it works, then we have seen the evidence. In a Kata match, if player 'A' performs a technique that is clearly different to an earlier 'version', (and it is not a mistake) who can say it is superior or inferior to the Kata performed by his or her opponent? There is simply no objective way to do so.

What 'works' or doesn't work in real combat depends on many things. In Kata (the repetitive practice of pure technique) we are dealing with pre-arranged drills that make a lot of assumptions. Assumptions about the number of opponents, whether they are armed, what they're armed with, their distance from the defender, the speed at which they attack, the order in which they attack (if any), the techniques or combinations they attack with etc, etc.

Who can argue that a subtle or not so subtle change in waza, timing, dachi-kata or bunkai renders a previous method of performing the same Kata redundant? Amazingly, some people do. By merely seeing or just hearing that a move or its practical application has altered, a person is not qualified to declare that those practicing earlier versions are wrong. The notion of right or wrong just doesn't apply.

We have learned that the criterion for the subjective assessment of a Kata performance is the correct application of 3 things;

1. Strength and Weakness
2. Expansion and Contraction
3. Slowness and Speed

Notice that there is no mention here of specific technique(s). Rather, these points deal with how much control the performer has over his/her body as the primary consideration. This command over the body's movement gives a better indication of how effective the person would be using Karate in a combat situation than any small variation in performance. Kata is a vehicle for this. Yes, techniques must be correct, but subtle differences or variations are not the priority.

If change is inevitable then the question must simply be; how should it be managed? How should we stay ahead of developments and what should be taken on board? If an entire organisation in one country practices a Kata one particular way, for example movement # 1 of Jutte in the hanmi position, what happens when a member of that group performs against another who uses the shomen position for the same move? Can both be right? Of course they can. The question of what is correct relative to the latest official Kata 'change' may be clear cut, but whether it makes the new version superior to another remains at the very least, subjective.

Send comments or feedback on this eDitorial to talkback

Back to eDitorials

Home

Copyright © Japan Karate Association of Australia (Victoria) Limited 2003