Given a section of any kata, what are the *rules* that define the applications for it?
Assume the easiest way to teach the form of the section is to call the actions "a downward body block, followed by a strike with the other hand and a step through into a long stance". The most obvious application would be just that - block, strike. How far can I twist things though? Live applications are not performed exactly the way they appear in kata, so there is some room for manipulation and the block could be a scoop, the strike could be a grab...
When do applications stop fitting the execution of the stylised kata techniques? What are the boundaries?

How far can you twist things? I suspect its only limited by your imagination. However, there has to come a point when you think 'does this still fit the kata'?

I have a simple rule for deciding whether a technique really fits the kata. I think of each technique in a kata as representing one or more principles - primarily these are principles of power generation but I also find some tactical principles in kata as well. So, for me, a technique is an application of a particular kata movement if, and only if, it expresses some of the principles I have identified in the movement. It doesn't really matter to me whether the technique looks like the kata, only that it fits the relevant principles (which usually means that it will feel like the kata).

Mike

I like that explanation, it makes sense. To me it says that by the time you adjust your movement according to the other person, adjust the level of your block, change the target of your strike and perhaps do something else to them as well it may not really look exactly like the kata but the look isn't the important part.


Mick

Thanks Mike - I think that's kind of what I was looking for - a definition of what "fit the kata" means.
Second question, then what about when one move is found in different kata? The moves before and after affect the principles of movement?

I don't think the preceding and following moves would alter the principles. If the movement is the same then the principles (at least those pertaining to power generation) should be the same. But the different context might reasonably inspire you to think of different applications.

To be honest I rarely get excited by whole sequences anymore. I remember going through the process of discovering kyusho related applications in the mid-90's. You felt you were on to something special if you could get a whole sequence to work as part of one application on one person. Now I'd look at those same applications and most likely consider them to be unrealistic, unwieldy and overly complicated.

Whilst I'm happy to string a sequence together I'll only do so nowadays if it seems a practical and sensible thing to do. I'm just as likely to take one movement and follow it by a movement from somewhere else in the kata or even a move from a different kata. I may even take just one part of a movement and use it in conjunction with one part of another movement. Its utilising the principles appropriately that's the important thing, everything else is subservient to that.

All that said, sometimes we see whole sequences repeated within a kata or even in a different kata. Two reasons spring to mind to explain this:
1. The whole sequence is important. The kata's originator had multiple applications for that sequence and therefore repeated it to make sure we perceived the importance of the sequence.
2. The sequence is not necessarily as important as we might suspect. Its just that the inventor of kata b wasn't very imaginative and borrowed a whole sequence from someone else's kata a simply because he liked the sequence.

I think there is probably truth in both reasons.

Mike