PDA

View Full Version : Kata Bunkai



Pages : [1] 2 3

TheBadger
5th July 2007, 20:31
I am interested in which styles/schools teach bunkai with their kata. I would love to hear comments on the following questions:

- Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?
- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?
- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?

I look forward to your replies.

Simon Keegan
5th July 2007, 21:07
Hello

I'm sure you are more interested in larger schools than my humble Dojo but I thought I may offer an answer.

For each basic technique (Oi Tzuki, Gedan Barai etc) I teach the basic bunkai/oyo (ie punch, lower parry) and then teach a less obvious application for example a turning Gedan Barai works very nicely as what is known in Judo as a Tai Otoshi (with a few slight tweaks)....

So then with the Kata my syllabus (up to about green belt) picks out a few sequences such as "from spearhand to lunge punch" in each Kata and prescribes a set application. So in the example I have given the defence is against a wrist grab, turning in, trapping the arm and finishing in a sort of reverse headlock position which looks a bit like a standing Kesa Gatame (it works better than it sounds).

So then when students have the idea that just because something looks like a block it could actually be, say a throw, I invite students to submit their own applications.

(Oh and we do the kata with Okinawan weapons as well but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

When the student reaches a more senior level they each specialise in an advanced kata.

As for the attacks that the defences are against, I use the 36 Habitual Acts of Physical Violence (I shamelessly plagiarised this from Hanshi Patrick McCarthy) and for the defences it's a combination of applications I've been taught, applications I've seen in old books etc and applications I have invented with my very own brain.

The principle I apply to any technique is:

1) Learn about the nature of violent situations
2) Learn correct technique
3) Test the technique
4) Drill the technique

My school is called Bushinkai, my system is called Toshu-Jutsu. The kata are from Shotokan and Goju Ryu with a few slight modifications.

Hope that's helpful, if not, at least I haven't wasted real ink...
Best wishes

Mitch Saret
5th July 2007, 22:23
We start everyone out with; if it looks like a puch, it's a punch, if it looks like a block, it's a block, if it looks like a kick, it's a kick. To wet their whistle and keep them interested I throw a few bunkai in there.

Intermediate level we work on basic bunkai. Taking simple attacks and how a kata sequence could be applied.

Advanced level we start to look at specific pressure point combinations and the like.

The movement can be quite varied, as a punch may be a grab, a kick may be a trip, and numerous other possibilities.

The big thing I teach is for the students to develop their own realistic variations and we look at them for plausibility. I always emphasize that this may not be what the kata's creator had in mind. I could be right, I could be wrong. George Dillman could be right. He could be wrong. We have to find our own path and what works for us.

ZachZinn
6th July 2007, 09:35
I am interested in which styles/schools teach bunkai with their kata. I would love to hear comments on the following questions:

- Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?
- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?
- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?

I look forward to your replies.

I was taught a few formal bunkai-oyo drills, and lot of applications, and some principles to find applications.

At least in the Goju i've learned bunkai with a "live" partner is an important part of training. I recently started teaching, and i'm trying to keep it that way. Problem is some people are really, really good at pulling stuff out and making it work, and some of us are still learning.

the premade bunkai-oyo drills that i've learned have a one to one relationship with the kata, however they are (for the most part) very simplistic (not that that's bad necessarily) when compared to the more free form applications.

As far as variation, I feel that as long as you have a good working knowledge of what it's supposed to accomplish and how it works, some individual variation is ok. As an example, i've seen a few different variations on how to do the "Sanchin turn", and a number of different applications to go along with it. As long as your posture remains correct during the turn both seem to work.

My teacher always allowed people to develop their own interpretations, but he "helped" us with them, and eventually we would have to make them work to some degree, at which point it became obvious whether or not they were viable. Only so many ways to make an omelet anyway, right?

My feeling is that to explore bunkai properly you really need a good uke who will honor your technique, but also make you work for it. Of course this is only if you've already been shown some bunkai-oyo yourself and are comfortable exploring it.

While I think people should learn bunkai-oyo from the start, I also believe a solid foundation in the proper mechanics of the kata is the only way they will get anything out of such training.

kenningar
11th July 2007, 17:01
I have seen advanced students performing some katas with its bunkai, usually one student performs kata , and two or three more students in each side responding the attack, and should be done with "kime", speed and power, and in general are advanced katas, here i have a sample of what im talking about,video recorded at class last summer, in matsubayashi style:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ2YBEI



And as Simon Keegan said, we do same thing, we learn the obvious answer to the attack or defense but also we learn several variations for same thing, when we are learning a new kata, is very normal to learn its respective bunkai, but that sometimes change within the teacher or the sempai who's helping us to learn that new kata.

trevorg
11th July 2007, 21:43
Sadly, speaking as a dinosaur, I have to say that once kata is altered to incorporate personal preferences or different teaching influences,then it is no longer the same kata vis-a-vis that which was originally taught.

Sorry for the slight thread drift but its an old hobbyhorse of mine although I am not saying it is an unnatural development. I recognise evolution happens, Chinese whispers whatever you like to call it or describe it and so in the same way does bunkai change and evolve because thats what happens as people pass things on through the generations, or change things because they want to develop their own style.

This has the unfortunate effect of people complaining that others can't possibly be doing a technique the right way because they themselves have been taught it the true way. Ho hum.

Anyway, to the point of your original question....Yes, I teach bunkai, Yes, I try to teach it as I was taught. No, I dont allow variation, nor do I allow students or instructors to vary.

I thought Simon's points very good although I am afraid I havent read McCarthy's book, and on that basis I would only agree with his points 2-4. For me, point 1 should always be to assess your opponent at that moment in time, to assess your own position, to assess the likelihood of attack and where it might come from ie punch or kick, from left or right limb, or even a disguised attack as has been suggested ie a grab not a punch. Once you have evaluated this then you can make the correct application to defend against the attack as you perceive it happening.

Clearly, the more advanced you are the more applications you have in your gunny bag so that you are not taken by surprise.

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
11th July 2007, 22:31
Anyway, to the point of your original question....Yes, I teach bunkai, Yes, I try to teach it as I was taught. No, I dont allow variation, nor do I allow students or instructors to vary.

So for you, bunkai is unvarying. Do you allow varying oyo?

ZachZinn
12th July 2007, 03:17
Anyway, to the point of your original question....Yes, I teach bunkai, Yes, I try to teach it as I was taught. No, I dont allow variation, nor do I allow students or instructors to vary.


Osu
Trevor

Does that mean just one interpretation per "move" in your bunkai, or do you have multiple interpretations and you just don't allow anything outside of those?

kenningar
12th July 2007, 03:53
maybe i wasn't so specific with my answer, at my school the way of teaching its very traditional indeed, bunkai its only practiced for advanced students, and only in special ocassions and with detail, while the not so advanced students ( as me) have to learn kata and its respective application, wich can change and has many diferents alternatives, that aplication i couldnt say it is bunkai, but its very usefull when we want to understand the interpretation of kata.

trevorg
12th July 2007, 10:26
In answer to Zach and Trevor above I feel I should have said that I try as hard as possible not to allow variation simply because stuff gets bastardized along the way, but as I also said I recognise evolution and also, more importantly for me, the need to assess an opponent's attack as it is happening and to change the counter as is appropriate.

I think John Hackett of Authentic Australian Shotokan
http://karatethejapaneseway.com/kata/chinte.pdf sets it out quite well.

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
12th July 2007, 17:48
In answer to Zach and Trevor above I feel I should have said that I try as hard as possible not to allow variation simply because stuff gets bastardized along the way, but as I also said I recognise evolution and also, more importantly for me, the need to assess an opponent's attack as it is happening and to change the counter as is appropriate.

I think John Hackett of Authentic Australian Shotokan
http://karatethejapaneseway.com/kata/chinte.pdf sets it out quite well.

Osu
Trevor

Ive been told by some people that they consider bunkai to be a drill that keeps the form of the kata the same. It leads to some things I dont necessarily agree in terms of applicability, such as blocking a person multiple times and then turning your back on him, unrealistic distancing of techniques, etc, but as long as it is made clear that this has nothing to do with any kind of martial application, ok. People are welcome to try their own personal interpretation of the kata, and call that oyo. The people I train with, on the other hand, call it all bunkai, since they term it as analysis of the kata. I personally figure if you can make the same move serve multiple purposes, its more useful to you.

Im sure there are other interpretations of bunkai, and I was wondering which you used.


Sorry about my punctuation, btw. This computer is acting funny.

trevorg
12th July 2007, 18:18
As I understand it Bunkai is the actual application of the techniques practised in the kata and Oyo are applications that also come from the kata but are not necessarily duplicated exactly as they are within the embusen of the kata, embusen referring to the line along which the kata is performed of course.

I agree there has to be a clear understanding of the applications of a kata because otherwise it is just a load of movements. I have to say that I havent discovered each by a long chalk and the two I think are intertwined.

All I do is teach the application I was taught. If I wasnt taught it, which unfortunately was often the case, then I have to draw on my experience and deal with it au naturel so as to speak.

osu
Trevor

Nyuck3X
12th July 2007, 18:54
I believe I got this from this forum.


分解する Bunkai suru (verb) to break down; to disect; to take apart.
応用する Oyo suru (verb) to apply; to put to practical use.

分解 Bunkai
Analysis; dissection or to take apart.

応用 Oyo
Application

Okuden waza: Hidden/secret techniques

Omote: Obvious - Omote waza, the obvious techniques that keep the
shape of the kata.

Ura: Hidden - Ura waza, hidden techniques.
Techniques that are not so obvious. Form and embusen can change from
the kata.

I do not speak Japanese so if anyone knows that this is incorrect,
please let me know.

Peace.

TheBadger
12th July 2007, 21:07
Sadly, speaking as a dinosaur, I have to say that once kata is altered to incorporate personal preferences or different teaching influences,then it is no longer the same kata vis-a-vis that which was originally taught.


Trevor, I guess my only comment is that, let be honest, no matter how "traditional" any style is, none of us doing the kata as they were originally taught. Or at very least, we cannot be sure that our "version" of the kata is the original version. Add to this, that there are many references to the "old masters" modifying kata to fit a student, leads me to believe that there may not be an correct version.

I would rather slightly modify the kata to make the bunkai more realistic and effective than to continue to perform a contrived bunkai.

kenningar
12th July 2007, 21:20
I think was interesting Nyuck3X's comment i don't speak japanese at all but i had told bunkai means "analysis of movements" (usually of kata), this i got it from some search on the web and from Shoshin Nagamine's book i think I'd never talked the meaning of this word with any teacher or sempai, all I know is what my sempais do when sensei says "Now Bunkai!", but if it says that is the "analysis of movements" and "usually in kata" maybe i could think bunkai is not exclusivity for kata only, do am i correct?

trevorg
12th July 2007, 23:01
Trevor, I guess my only comment is that, let be honest, no matter how "traditional" any style is, none of us doing the kata as they were originally taught. Or at very least, we cannot be sure that our "version" of the kata is the original version. Add to this, that there are many references to the "old masters" modifying kata to fit a student, leads me to believe that there may not be an correct version.

I would rather slightly modify the kata to make the bunkai more realistic and effective than to continue to perform a contrived bunkai.


Rick - An interesting point. Certainly I have no idea if the kata and their application as taught to me were taught the same way to my sensei and I suppose if I were truthful with myself I could well imagine what I was taught may have changed over the years although I like to think not. The memory certainly plays tricks, but I take the view that if you practice the drill over and over for many years then it is unlikely it would change much.

And I agree, I doubt there is a correct version, but we can only go on what we were taught until someone explains better but then we're into a whole new ball game of mine is bigger than yours.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
17th August 2007, 19:44
Hi there,

I see this topic has been dormant for the past month but I thought I'd put my 2 cents worth in.

First the answer to the original questions posed:

-Does your style/school teach/require bunkai? A: Yes.
- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship? A: one to one relationship for bunkai for the most part.
- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement? A: None
- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai? A: No, not bunkai.

Quoting Trevorg:
"Sadly, speaking as a dinosaur, I have to say that once kata is altered to incorporate personal preferences or different teaching influences,then it is no longer the same kata vis-a-vis that which was originally taught."

Seems I, also, am a dinosaur. However, I am a student of a dinosaur so this makes perfect sense. The bunkai is not varied for the personal preferences of the practitioner for some of the very same reasons mentioned by Trevorg. It most always distorts the form of the kata if one does not adhere to strict, for lack of a better description, bunkai. Practitioners within my own style who see the bunkai as too "basic" and, therefore, want to fancy it up, have a very different looking, sometimes "bastardized", kata.

Two previous comments:
"Ive been told by some people that they consider bunkai to be a drill that keeps the form of the kata the same. It leads to some things I dont necessarily agree in terms of applicability, such as blocking a person multiple times and then turning your back on him, unrealistic distancing of techniques, etc, but as long as it is made clear that this has nothing to do with any kind of martial application, ok."

OK, so why do the form of a kata at all, if it "leads" to unrealistic distancing and has nothing to do with martial application? I have found that bunkai is very applicable but when students first begin to do bunkai they often have trouble with the distancing on techniques. The problem is not usually because of the kata but, rather, the inexperience of the practioner.

and:
"the premade bunkai-oyo drills that i've learned have a one to one relationship with the kata, however they are (for the most part) very simplistic (not that that's bad necessarily) when compared to the more free form applications."


Another common thread that always seems to come up, is that, somehow, simplistic if inferior to complex. I know that's not what was said, but it is a common thought by some and has a lot to do with why many people want complex bunkai. I think I could poll the group, especially those with indepth experience, and the results would be that simplisitic is superior and complex is unrealistic. Of course, simplisitc techniques are, if seeking perfection of the technique, very complex in and of themselves.

I have seen people teach very complex "bunkai" (I like to refer to that as oyo) and it is always if very confusing and difficult for people to do. I have to ask myself, if this is a bona fide self defence technique, why is it so darned hard to get even the most competent in the group to do the technique with any level of expertise? Of course, it makes for good seminar material, keeps people coming back, and deals with the lack of concentration that most people have to dedicate themselves to something for a long period of time. But, it doesn't seem to be a very valuable tool that when one may need to call upon in times of great stress, during a life threatening situation, with the potential for devasting outcomes.

So, the other reasons for teaching bunkai, "simplified" and without variation and for teaching more "complex" oyo.

One reason (and only one) for teaching bunkai, "simplified" is as follows. We have to think back to when our art was developed and what was happening to those that were teaching and learning martial arts. Some teachers, mine included, still believe that these techniques we are learning should not be taken lightly. He has said to me on more than one occassion that there are only 3 types of people who come to your dojo. Someone who wants to challenge you, someone who wants to steal your techniques, and someone who wants to become your student. And, sometimes, it's hard to tell what category a person falls into. Especially those in the guise of a student. So, surely, we must keep that in mind when disclosing information and, therefore, not everything is devulged at the first meeting, sometimes for years, and sometimes ever, even to the student. Better to let that person go away thinking they've seen it all, then let that knowledge fall into the hands of those not deserving or will bring the art into disrepute. Some may say this is archaic and not necessary in the modern world but that is the history and tradition of our art.

One reason for teaching oyo after coming to know your student is as follows. As an teacher, finding the forte of the student is most important. What are the best techniques for this individual, how can I take their innate nature and abilities and enhance them? If everything was ever just done way then, as a teacher, we would be remiss in giving that person the skills that would best ensure their survival. Finding someone's forte may not become apparent until the more complex techinques and movements are introduced to them.

So, there, just a few comments, it's just my 2 cents worth, and it was more fun to write this then what I should have been doing. I've procrastinated and now must get back to what I should have been doing. Hope y'all have a good weekend.

Take care,
Sheree

ZachZinn
17th August 2007, 21:45
and:
"the premade bunkai-oyo drills that i've learned have a one to one relationship with the kata, however they are (for the most part) very simplistic (not that that's bad necessarily) when compared to the more free form applications."


Another common thread that always seems to come up, is that, somehow, simplistic if inferior to complex. I know that's not what was said, but it is a common thought by some and has a lot to do with why many people want complex bunkai. I think I could poll the group, especially those with indepth experience, and the results would be that simplisitic is superior and complex is unrealistic. Of course, simplisitc techniques are, if seeking perfection of the technique, very complex in and of themselves.



I think was wasn't clear enough about what I was meant by 'simplistic'...I agree simple usually works better than complex.

Here's what it comes down to for me...most of the "formal bunkai" i've seen and been taught are very ritualized 2 man drills, they serve a definite function and have alot to teach, but they seem very broken down into conjunctions of block, then punch etc.

As you get progessively higher they tend to be a bit more "flowing", but you would still be crazy to assume a real fight will go like that, they are formal drills to teach specific things.

Here's an example from the 'flavor' of Goju I train in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz0ufCmYufw

It's a nice drill, but to me as a relatively new shodan, I would find it...limiting if this was presented to me as the be all end all of saifa kata bunkai.

trevorg
17th August 2007, 23:30
I think was wasn't clear enough about what I was meant by 'simplistic'...I agree simple usually works better than complex.

Here's what it comes down to for me...most of the "formal bunkai" i've seen and been taught are very ritualized 2 man drills, they serve a definite function and have alot to teach, but they seem very broken down into conjunctions of block, then punch etc.

As you get progessively higher they tend to be a bit more "flowing", but you would still be crazy to assume a real fight will go like that, they are formal drills to teach specific things.

Here's an example from the 'flavor' of Goju I train in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz0ufCmYufw

It's a nice drill, but to me as a relatively new shodan, I would find it...limiting if this was presented to me as the be all end all of saifa kata bunkai.

Zach

If I might say, with respect, and within my limited experience, the issue of practising bunkai is the same as practising any basics. A student needs to practice and practice and practice ad infinitum so that it becomes second nature. You will never find a basic technique, whether in bunkai or elsewhere, that will meet all the possible variations of an attack,which means that you have to take into account the size and weight of the attacker,the environment, your own condition, your assessment of his experience weighed against yours, distance and timing (and your experience of that and also assessing again whether your opponents assessment of your distance and timing is better or worse than yours and so on and so on).

As time passes so all practice and drills intesify and escalate and in that way you acquire more knowledge. However, as a shodan you are at the very beginning of learning and believe me it never stops.

The drill you referred to on youtube, or any kata bunkai for that matter,should never be regarded as the be all and end all because there should be so much you should be taking from it every time you practice it. Each time it should be different as your learning curve increases, so you shouldnt regard the ritual of a particular set of moves as being the panacea for dealing with a live fight. It is just a small component of the whole, which unfortunately most of us never find.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
18th August 2007, 00:38
Zach

If I might say, with respect, and within my limited experience, the issue of practising bunkai is the same as practising any basics. A student needs to practice and practice and practice ad infinitum so that it becomes second nature. You will never find a basic technique, whether in bunkai or elsewhere, that will meet all the possible variations of an attack,which means that you have to take into account the size and weight of the attacker,.................
Osu
Trevor


I'm in total agreement with the spirit of what you say above, my post was more regarding viewing kata as "this move equals this" in a rigid fashion.

I'm responding to the idea that a bunkai drill such as the one above should be regarded as The Bunkai Oyo for the kata, in this case Saifa. I have also seen plenty of applications taught for Saifa that don't fit this mold, but seem to work just fine.

What part of the things i've said do you disagree with?

There's been a couple times now where you've thrown the "you're a shodan" thing out at me, I certainly admit to being green, but it doesn't lessen the relevance of my opinion on this subject. Would you respond to me the same if I simply never mentioned my rank?

I only mentioned my rank in previous posts out of an interest in being open about skill levels for the purpose of the discussion, however I don't think it should disqualify me from it.

If i'm misreading you I apologize.

Nyuck3X
18th August 2007, 05:35
IMO, the Saifa video was yakusoku kumite or promise sparring.
It's a drill to develop timing, speed distance and form.

Ohyo waza can be used on a noncompliant uke and should only
require one or two moves to complete. Anything longer than that
and you are doing choreography.

trevorg
18th August 2007, 08:57
I'm in total agreement with the spirit of what you say above, my post was more regarding viewing kata as "this move equals this" in a rigid fashion.

I'm responding to the idea that a bunkai drill such as the one above should be regarded as The Bunkai Oyo for the kata, in this case Saifa. I have also seen plenty of applications taught for Saifa that don't fit this mold, but seem to work just fine.

What part of the things i've said do you disagree with?

There's been a couple times now where you've thrown the "you're a shodan" thing out at me, I certainly admit to being green, but it doesn't lessen the relevance of my opinion on this subject. Would you respond to me the same if I simply never mentioned my rank?

I only mentioned my rank in previous posts out of an interest in being open about skill levels for the purpose of the discussion, however I don't think it should disqualify me from it.

If i'm misreading you I apologize.

Zach

I do apologise if my wording seems critical of you . It isnt meant to be. Unfortunately at my age I tend to forget what I might have said earlier or not bothered to check earlier posts.

Of course rank doesnt disqualify anyone from opinion, but if I were to be totally abstract I would say that any rank in any art/sport or workplace that lacks the experience of someone who owns lots of it will always find themselves in a position of seeking an answer, simply because they dont have the experience or knowledge to offer a valid solution - and thats not meant in a demeaning or critical way.

This doesnt mean to say it disqualifies anyone from discussion, it is just a matter of fact that the more one is down the scale (of anything) then their knowledge by definition has to be not as much as someone who has more.
However, on a personal note, I never discuss rank because it creates perception issues. I am always learning but I hope that what I have learned I might be able to share from time to time and that which I dont know I ask and listen. And that is definitely not meant to sound condescending.

So to try and answer your question; the point I am suggesting is that as ANY application is passed down to us by our Sensei in a prescribed set of moves there will always be a degree of rigidity. We dont have the option to change things at will unless we are freestyling. For example, in Wing Chun a main drill is Chi Sau (sticking hands).To gauge a students ability in Wing Chun is not done by watching their forms but by engaging in Chi Sau with them. It is a very free expression.

Chi Sau develops not only hand techniques but also contact sensitivity, reflexes, positioning, knowledge of energy use as well as trapping skills. All of these elements are as one when you are fighting and it is the combination of these elements that determines the ability of a person when they are free fighting.

However IMO the applications we are shown are by definition fixed to the kata and all I am saying is that I believe these should be practised and practised until the point is reached where all the applications of all the kata are absorbed into one's consciousness.
Sorry about all that waffle.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
20th August 2007, 01:10
However IMO the applications we are shown are by definition fixed to the kata and all I am saying is that I believe these should be practised and practised until the point is reached where all the applications of all the kata are absorbed into one's consciousness.
Sorry about all that waffle.



Ok so do you think there is only one interpretation per technique? Do you think time is better served practicing bunkai/oyo with an uke or just by practicing kata?

Obviousy chudan uke can never be a spinning roundhouse kick...but there are alot of different uses for chudan uke (as an example) other than the "classic" presentation.

I've seen some schools where there is little to no practice of application with a partner, it's all just sort of thrown out as theory, and we're told that by constant repetition of the solo kata we somehow "learn" the techniques...I'm not sure I buy this argument.

Thanks for clarifying the shodan thing, I get it now. YOU HATE ME.

Just joking, I appreciate the candor and your comments made sense.

Anyway, to address Ray's comments on the clip I linked to, this is sort of "beginner to intermediate" level bunkai practice where i'm coming from, whereas what I think of as "applications" tend to be much shorter as you said, and far less choreographed. They're both "bunkai" in some way though, right?

trevorg
20th August 2007, 12:43
Ok so do you think there is only one interpretation per technique? Do you think time is better served practicing bunkai/oyo with an uke or just by practicing kata?

Obviousy chudan uke can never be a spinning roundhouse kick...but there are alot of different uses for chudan uke (as an example) other than the "classic" presentation.

I've seen some schools where there is little to no practice of application with a partner, it's all just sort of thrown out as theory, and we're told that by constant repetition of the solo kata we somehow "learn" the techniques...I'm not sure I buy this argument.

Thanks for clarifying the shodan thing, I get it now. YOU HATE ME.

Just joking, I appreciate the candor and your comments made sense.

Anyway, to address Ray's comments on the clip I linked to, this is sort of "beginner to intermediate" level bunkai practice where i'm coming from, whereas what I think of as "applications" tend to be much shorter as you said, and far less choreographed. They're both "bunkai" in some way though, right?

Yeah, Zach, I REALLY hate you and all those with a genuine sense of quest because you KEEP ASKING. I really love those tossers, though, who dont know what they are talking about, or are talking through their rear view mirrors, then I can play games for as long as I want.

No, I dont think there is one interpretation per technique because as I have said in a real situation there are two many assessments to make and consider, but in terms of practice I would say that is correct to practice alone or with uke because both activities will give you a different perspective. If you repetitively practice a kata your own mind and body reactions (as one grows in experience) will find something different in each move . The purpose, as I understand it, is to imagine the different attacks coming in and deal with them in accordance with the blocks of the kata by using shingan (mind's eye).

By using uke there is the opportunity to feel it 'hands on', but of course it is a prescribed set of moves with a prescribed set of answers.

I'm not sure how to answer you, Zach, because I believe a kata should never be changed (in as far as that is possible) and therefore there must be an unalterable set of moves. It is not possible IMO to consider a variety of applications to be taken from one kata. For example, if uke delivers mae geri and the response (from the kata in question) is gedan barai, then it is gedan barai that you do, not juji gedan.

Perhaps those much more experienced than I can provide a more definitive answer.

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
20th August 2007, 17:46
For example, if uke delivers mae geri and the response (from the kata in question) is gedan barai, then it is gedan barai that you do, not juji gedan.

Perhaps those much more experienced than I can provide a more definitive answer.

Osu
Trevor

I think the question is not so much what you may be doing to your uke, but what your uke may be doing to elicit that response? As in, if there are two different attacks that can be responded to in a very similar way, are those both then considered bunkai within the parameters you describe?

(I've seen people who'd consider them both bunkai, and some who would not. I'm mostly trying to figure out where you're coming from on this. )

trevorg
20th August 2007, 19:28
I think the question is not so much what you may be doing to your uke, but what your uke may be doing to elicit that response? As in, if there are two different attacks that can be responded to in a very similar way, are those both then considered bunkai within the parameters you describe?

(I've seen people who'd consider them both bunkai, and some who would not. I'm mostly trying to figure out where you're coming from on this. )

The latter, I guess.

Nyuck3X
20th August 2007, 20:05
What we are discussing is Okuden waza. Okuden Waza as described by Lawrence A. Kane and Kris Wilder are the "secets" of kata. Ref: http://books.google.com/books?id=KwjtqbXTLqwC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=okuden+waza&source=web&ots=AC2IUGLwQp&sig=JNzPqbGpPDD4EL_Xy81GYD5JN3c

Bunkai - To analyze
Ohyo waza - Application techniques

Omote: Obvious - Omote waza, the obvious techniques that keep the shape of the kata.

Ura: Hidden - Ura waza, hidden techniques. Techniques that are not so obvious. Form and embusen can change from the kata.

Peace.

Trevor Johnson
20th August 2007, 20:08
What we are discussing is Okuden waza. Okuden Waza as described by Lawrence A. Kane and Kris Wilder are the "secets" of kata. Ref: http://books.google.com/books?id=KwjtqbXTLqwC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=okuden+waza&source=web&ots=AC2IUGLwQp&sig=JNzPqbGpPDD4EL_Xy81GYD5JN3c

Bunkai - To analyze
Ohyo waza - Application techniques

Omote: Obvious - Omote waza, the obvious techniques that keep the shape of the kata.

Ura: Hidden - Ura waza, hidden techniques. Techniques that are not so obvious. Form and embusen can change from the kata.

Peace.
If we are discussing okuden waza, or ura waza, then form and embusen can change. I think we're currently discussing waza where the embusen and form cannot be changed or the kata's not the same. Slight confusion on my part, perhaps?

Sheree Adams
20th August 2007, 20:47
I hate to have reopened the discussion and then not be able to comment but, sadly, they're making me work. I'd like to not fall into the category of being a "tosser", so, just to make a short comment before I get back to work. I agree, 100%, with every thing that Trevor Gilbert has said regarding this thread. In fact, it's really wonderful to hear it said so well.

I was discussing this with a friend and we were talking about how some students "intellectualize" techniques, do it for a short time physically, have trouble doing it well, and therefore, disgard it or suggest it needs a revamp. Finding that something doesn't work the first time out usually requires just more practice and/or understanding rather than changing it to make it to suit the expertise of the practitioner. I think this is what happens a lot of time to "set" bunkai.

Just a quick comment on the link you sent regarding Saifa. I noticed that there is no sequence or rhythm in the bunkai, nor the use of kamae. Are you shown how to use these aspects? Maybe this is what you find missing.

Sorry, love to read the discussions and hope to find time to take part, but got a bit swamped at work.

Thanks for all the interesting comments and questions.

sheree

ZachZinn
20th August 2007, 21:07
I hate to have reopened the discussion and then not be able to comment but, sadly, they're making me work. I'd like to not fall into the category of being a "tosser", so, just to make a short comment before I get back to work. I agree, 100%, with every thing that Trevor Gilbert has said regarding this thread. In fact, it's really wonderful to hear it said so well.

I was discussing this with a friend and we were talking about how some students "intellectualize" techniques, do it for a short time physically, have trouble doing it well, and therefore, disgard it or suggest it needs a revamp. Finding that something doesn't work the first time out usually requires just more practice and/or understanding rather than changing it to make it to suit the expertise of the practitioner. I think this is what happens a lot of time to "set" bunkai.

Just a quick comment on the link you sent regarding Saifa. I noticed that there is no sequence or rhythm in the bunkai, nor the use of kamae. Are you shown how to use these aspects? Maybe this is what you find missing.



Hmm yeah, on the clip, no the usual dynamics aren't there, i'm gonna assume that they were "lightly" practicing it just to go through the motions, but I don't know the guys so...probably best to assume it's not being done with 100% gusto in that particular clip.

The unfortunate thing about the longer yakusoku type drills is that you can't get the full effect until your body remembers so well that you can go with lots of speed and power, which requires doing it alot, so i'm assuming these gentlemen were 'rehearsing' more than anythting else.

Ray:
I've really gotten alot out of Kane and Wilder's book, and I should probably disclose that I train under Kris Wilder when possible (I live in another town), so i'm a biased source.

Anyway, all i'm trying to get across is the difference between the "rigid bunkai" and the ura-waza concept, and it seems that's where most of us are differing.

Being at the level I am, I still have very little understanding of the ura-waza I think, but what little I have been exposed to seem very different from what I would call a "rigid bunkai".

Nyuck3X
20th August 2007, 23:11
Zach,
You and Trevor (as is all of us) are on a journey of discovery. One may know
method "A", and the other method "B". Some may know both "A and B". We
all come to an understanding at one time or another. I believe there is a time
for "rigid ohyo and a time for ura waza. We all come to it in our own time.

Stepping off of my soap box, please extend my gratitude to Wilder Sensei
for co-writing the book. It has helped me immensely.

Peace.

trevorg
20th August 2007, 23:13
I believe the point Sheree made about kamae is all important. There was none in the clip and on that basis I would also agree they are probably going through the motions. And,Sheree,there are no tossers on this thread.

I would agree with Sheree there is a tendency to intellectualise techniques, usually because there is a lack of grasp and a willingness to persevere, and this I am afraid is a very western issue:- "Let's talk it through,find another way, perhaps a better way that works for me" whereas the truth is there for all to find if but they search hard enough for it.

Zach; when you mention "the longer yakusoku type drills is that you can't get the full effect until your body remembers so well that you can go with lots of speed and power" I would suggest that whatever drill you practice,as you would with kata, is that the only way you can remember the sequence is to practice each individual movement until it becomes second nature - then you move on to the next,and so on. And as with all moves you learn the technique first. I prefer to do this slowly so that I may feel it. Then I add tension so that the move is done with slow technique and power, and when (and if ) I have mastered that I do it finally with speed,and then very finally all three together.

But as Ray said in the post above 'we all come to it in our own time'. Couldn't agree more.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
20th August 2007, 23:33
Zach,
You and Trevor (as is all of us) are on a journey of discovery. One may know
method "A", and the other method "B". Some may know both "A and B". We
all come to an understanding at one time or another. I believe there is a time
for "rigid ohyo and a time for ura waza. We all come to it in our own time.

Stepping off of my soap box, please extend my gratitude to Wilder Sensei
for co-writing the book. It has helped me immensely.

Peace.

I will mention it:) I love the book also, his new(ish) book on Sanchin kata is really good as well.

I get what everyone is saying about the over-intellectualizing, but honestly in alot of cases that seems like a training issue more than a conceptual one.

With bunkai-related stuff it seems like there is often a tendency to get too "talky" and not train at a level of intensity appropriate for what we are doing. Like just standing around going "check this out", "try this" and fooling aorund, rather than training a technique with a degree of focus.

Well i'm starting to see that maybe everyone does pretty much agree in this thread, but it's also made me realize the limitations of language (especially in a virtual world) when discussing these things.

trevorg
20th August 2007, 23:34
If we are discussing okuden waza, or ura waza, then form and embusen can change. I think we're currently discussing waza where the embusen and form cannot be changed or the kata's not the same. Slight confusion on my part, perhaps?

Trevor

As I understand it we are not discussing okuden waza (the secrets), or ura waza (reverse techniques) but whether one should be rigid or flexible in the applications of a kata. So, if you're confused then so am I, but I dont think we are (that is unless we're having a geriatric moment).

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
20th August 2007, 23:54
Trevor

As I understand it we are not discussing okuden waza (the secrets), or ura waza (reverse techniques) but whether one should be rigid or flexible in the applications of a kata. So, if you're confused then so am I, but I dont think we are (that is unless we're having a geriatric moment).

Osu
Trevor
Ah. A toast to confusion, then! Can't find enlightenment without it!

trevorg
21st August 2007, 11:48
Old age is akin to the continuous learning cycle of martial arts. Once you've reached what you think is the pinnacle you go right back to where you began !

Now where did I leave my incontinence pads .......?

osu
Trevor

trevorg
21st August 2007, 13:53
BTW, if I might be permitted to say, this has been a very stimulating thread.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
22nd August 2007, 20:46
Hi all,

I would like to say that I also, have enjoyed this thread. And, once again, Trevor Gilbert has said it much better than myself displaying that his limits of the language are not as great as others, i.e., myself. Thanks.

Zach,
It is hard to communicate that which is much easier to explain physically. While people do tend to over intellectualize concepts (beautifully explained by Trevor Gilbert, I might add) and be a mighty keyboard warrior, I believe that you have asked legitimate questions in a true desire to learn more.

One important aspect of training that is often overlooked, and is almost extinct, is the invaluable time spent with your sensei talking about technique. Training used to take place in the dojo, sensei's house, whatever, followed by food and drink. Everyone trained together, then ate together. That was the time to ask questions, listen to history by your Sensei, and spend the time learning the conceptual teachings you desire. Sadly, now, if people do go out with their sensei it's in a "buddy" kind of way and most of the time is talking inanely about things that don't matter. There's something said for carrying over the roles and responsibilities inside and outside the dojo. While the time training on the dojo floor is imperative, I believe that one cannot fully comprehend the intricacies without that time spent sitting on the dojo floor as well.

Never give up the quest for knowledge. You started a good discussion. I learned a lot.

I would like to say that this is the most civil group of people posting to an online discussion that I have encountered for quite some time. Most of the online groups seemed to have digressed to a very rude, argumentative, and disrespectfully bunch of people that would never dare to behave that way in person, especially in the dojo. I must commend this forum for I believe, in this case, it has been used as it was intended, to further the knowledge of all involved.

Thank you,
Sheree

trevorg
23rd August 2007, 10:16
Sheree,

I dont know if anyone has welcomed you to e-budo, but if not a warm hello.

There is always an issue on forums, emails or any form of discussion where face-to-face just isnt going to happen and in so doing, of course, much gets lost in translation, misunderstanding, mis-communication etc. That is not to say that some are more or less literate than others and therefore have less or more to contribute, it is to do with the medium in which we choose to communicate. Time (or lack of it) also plays its part, I believe, as largely speaking posts are terse and consequently not always to the point. My mother was a great letter writer and I have inherited that characteristic, but you need to take time out to compose and think things through. The web doesn't afford us that luxury it seems and because of this the message doesnt always get across (in either direction).

With regard to your point about training used to take place in the dojo, sensei's house etc. Taking this further, which I don't think this is thread drift because it is closely intertwined with every aspect be it bunkai or whatever, I do agree that the modern western world in which live is conducive to the 'buddy' approach rather than that which you succinctly described.

From my own experience I can say that from the day I first started training 35 years ago I was in awe of my Sensei, and I still am of all my teachers. He is long dead but I remember he always went for a drink in the pub after training with any student that wished to join him, but it was curious to note that most just wanted a closer affinity, a sort of reflected glory, whereas I took the opportunity to discuss a whole range of related issues.

Undoubtedly, he talked and I listened, but as the years went by I was invited to his home for dinner with his wife and mine and was able to obtain a closer understanding of the man, and therefore what karate had done for him in his life. To my mind this helped create a mutual respect; for his part that he had a student who was willing to learn on a much deeper level, and for me to see that karate was just more than block and punch.

At no time, though , was I a buddy. He was my teacher, and I his student.

This is all to do with respect, isnt it ? For example, if I am invited to teach or train at one of my earlier Sensei dojos the first thing I do if I am the first to arrive, is sweep the floor. This has nothing to do with the humility bit, or creeping up Sensei's rear view mirror, but it should come as a natural consequence of the respect you have for your Sensei. These small acts will allow further discourse on the deeper meanings otherwise it is impossible to learn and all that a student will learn are the motions and not the real purpose, and more to the point what it does for one's life as a whole.

Moving on to the issue under discussion, kata bunkai, it is clear that a new student will be shown the technique, told to practice it and just get on with it, and so they do (or should). It is not for the student to question the technique, modify it to suit themselves etc, but as time passes the student will discover more from the technique and if they do find themselves in discussion outside the dojo they might even learn what lies behind the technique and how much more there is to it than first appears.

As I have said before, the kata should not be changed, ergo nor should bunkai. If a kata is changed then it is not the same kata any more, nor is the bunkai. It has become a different animal with different applications. That's fine for some, it just isnt what it was and consequently it has been lost.

Osu
Trevor

Nyuck3X
23rd August 2007, 17:56
Moving on to the issue under discussion, kata bunkai, it is clear that a new student will be shown the technique, told to practice it and just get on with it, and so they do (or should). It is not for the student to question the technique, modify it to suit themselves etc, but as time passes the student will discover more from the technique and if they do find themselves in discussion outside the dojo they might even learn what lies behind the technique and how much more there is to it than first appears.

As I have said before, the kata should not be changed, ergo nor should bunkai. If a kata is changed then it is not the same kata any more, nor is the bunkai. It has become a different animal with different applications. That's fine for some, it just isnt what it was and consequently it has been lost.

Osu
Trevor

I agree. Most of my "discoveries" occured when I moved away from my
Sensei and started training alone or with a student. (This was after 15
years of training with him).

I keep the form of the kata because I interpret my role in budo as an
conserviter. It is all we have from the last known Masters and I for one would
like to see this tradition continue. I respect every Ryuha's interpretation
and enjoy the diversity.

As for eating with Sensei. I used to train in the backyard of my Sensei.
Afterwards he would invite us in where he and his wife would cook for us.
We all eventually would contribute in one way or another. I agree that
you can learn a lot through this kind of interaction, but the most valuable
thing I ever got was my relationship with Sensei and my Sempai. For
me, the dojo is most than a place to learn Karate. It is also a place
where social skills and bonds can be aquired.

Peace.

Shorin Ryuu
27th August 2007, 08:01
My viewpoint will be a little different.

Back in the old days, it was easy. They just used the word "imi", which literally meant "meaning". I think all these other terms got kind of crowded in later.

Chibana Sensei would teach 3 levels of meaning for the movements. The first level was taught to schoolchildren, the second was taught to high school-age, and the third, provided the student was ready, was taught to adults. Level 3 tended to be more lethal and not something easily comprehendible or necessary for younger students.

But the difference in meaning wasn't: Level 1 is block, Level 2 is an arm bar, and Level 3 is quadruple pressure point exploding heart throw... it was more like Level 1/2 were reinforced blocks, while Level 3 was a block with a finger tip thrust (opening moves of Patsai, for example).

I am in the minority in most places with regards to my stance on this. Due largely to the glamor of MMA grappling or the mystique of Chinese-looking techniques, it is very much en vogue to have as much grappling/pressure points/flavor of the week as possible in your "bunkai". For Chibana Sensei, the meaning was simple because the technique was just that, "simple". It was the interaction of your posture, stance, timing, and muscle/ligament/tendon/bone usage that turned a Mickey Mouse block into a devastating attack on the arm, causing the opponent to literally collapse on the floor (he was known for this).

For many, there is a lack of understanding of the very basic fundamentals of power as applied through the Itosu-Chibana framework, therefore the "simplistic explanations" that I tend to train in for the meanings of the kata seem weak, unsophisticated, and impractical. But if you focus more upon how you perform the technique rather than coming up with inventive meanings, all you will need in a fight is an understanding of distance (and how to close it) and timing combined with strong strikes, blocks, and kicks. The "how" is what makes it strong, not the "why".

For Chibana Sensei, there were no secret meanings or esoteric techniques. It was simple, but that made it extremely powerful. Somebody somewhere mentioned that basic techniques could not possibly stand up to the myriad of possibilities in a fight. I would argue that because of their simplicity, they stand the best chance of doing so.

Lastly, there is much ado, usually in more Western countries, regarding the "rigid" adherence to kata and meanings. They feel it is better for people to express their individuality or personal preference in the techniques and meanings they train in. My view on this is that if you want to express your individuality, go become an artist. If you have a scientific methodology you are working towards, then people training in the same methodology will start to look the same. Certain actions cause certain results, so if you want to maximize a certain result, then you will tend to train the same actions. This is not a narrowing of the mind, but a broadening. For those who are still trying to discover what they are doing or are a victim of an imperfect transmission of meanings for kata at whatever point up the line... then maybe it is best to experiment. I will stick to my simple methodology.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

trevorg
27th August 2007, 12:20
No different to my view at all, John. Very glad we're on the same wavelength.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
27th August 2007, 14:15
Hi John,

Make that at least 3 of us. Thank you for the post.

Sheree

ZachZinn
27th August 2007, 19:45
why".

For Chibana Sensei, there were no secret meanings or esoteric techniques. It was simple, but that made it extremely powerful. Somebody somewhere mentioned that basic techniques could not possibly stand up to the myriad of possibilities in a fight. I would argue that because of their simplicity, they stand the best chance of doing so.



I assume you're talking about my comments, but that's not what I said, I was addressing yakusoku type drills specifically, and it was covered further in the thread, I don't think anyone in the conversation doubts the efficacy of basic karate technique, otherwise I just don't see us having this conversation.




Lastly, there is much ado, usually in more Western countries, regarding the "rigid" adherence to kata and meanings. They feel it is better for people to express their individuality or personal preference in the techniques and meanings they train in. My view on this is that if you want to express your individuality, go become an artist. If you have a scientific methodology you are working towards, then people training in the same methodology will start to look the same. Certain actions cause certain results, so if you want to maximize a certain result, then you will tend to train the same actions. This is not a narrowing of the mind, but a broadening. For those who are still trying to discover what they are doing or are a victim of an imperfect transmission of meanings for kata at whatever point up the line... then maybe it is best to experiment. I will stick to my simple methodology.

Just wanted to throw that out there.


Look, from what I have been taught there is more than one interpretation for a given sequence, you admitted yourself there are certain levels of bunkai. Also, frankly the bolded portion of your statement is a little divisive, and i'm not sure I see the point of it.

I think alot of you are really missing the point i'm trying (doing my best) to make, and assuming I'm advocating some crazy super-grappling bunkai or something. I'm not, nor would any of my teachers ever point me in that direction.

All I am talking about is that in my experience the gap between the simple "block then punch then this then that" and what seem to me to be more "advanced" techniques is large.

The reason I posted the Saifa clip earlier was to give an example of this, ever seen Saifa performed? Doesn't look a whole lot like this, and there are certainly other valid interpretations than this particular drill.

What part of the above do you all disagree with?

Again, please stop assuming I (or anyone else) are advocating some crazy bunkai, I don't think we are.

Anyway it's been an enjoyable thread, and i've learned alot from it, I don't have alot more to say.

ZachZinn
27th August 2007, 20:27
I was thinking a bit more about what i'm trying to verbalize (really this is the last time;) ) and I thought I'd get a little more specific.

Here is an example from my own past a long time ago, something I was actually told by someone:

The double gedan barai thing in anaku (don't know what you call it sorry) was a block to simultaneous kicks...things like that. So there is simple-sub optimal too, not just simple=good.

I guess that's what I was trying to get across, you see plenty of weird interpretations that are simple too, rather than all the questionable stuff simply being questionable due to complexity.

Anyway like I said, it's been fun but I think i've clarified what I wanted to say, and now i'll try to end this all on a friendly note, thanks for the great conversation guys.

Shorin Ryuu
27th August 2007, 20:40
If you are offended, I am sorry. I am only calling it the way that I myself see it. And to clarify, I am talking about in a fight, not yakusoku or anything else. I only mentioned it because it is a common argument, even if it was not exactly what you meant. To be honest, I wasn't really addressing anyone in particular with my post, I was just one-sidedly saying what I wanted to say.

For us, there are no basic techniques and there are no advanced techniques. All our techniques are simple; we just train to do them in an advanced way. This has more to do with our posture, stance and timing rather than changing the movement itself.

As for multiple meanings... we never get into discussions about oyo bunkai or ura waza or all that. For us, regardless of the level of meaning for your movement, the movement is exactly the same. Sports medicine states that the training of both the body and the brain in conducting technique is of such a specific nature that practicing a movement one way will give you benefits almost entirely concentrated in that one way of doing it. Therefore practicing it one way but stating that it really is X or Y or could be Z is not setting yourself up for success. Obviously, there are modifications you will have to do depending on the relative size of your opponent, since the kata is "assuming" your opponent is the same size as you, but that should largely be it. As uncomfortably rigid as this sounds to people who want to sound free thinking and rational, it is the reality of the way human biology works.

Addressing the other point, if you have a direct transmission of both the how and why behind the movements of the kata, I see no reason at all to come up with your own ways of doing it. The how and why that is transmitted to me for Chibana Sensei's kata is more than enough to work on for a lifetime. The critical thinking process comes into play when you analyze whether a technique works or not. If not, then there are two reasons. Either you are not doing it correctly or the reason you have given to you sucks. How you make this determination is up to you.

The vast majority of the "bunkai movement" worldwide is an effort to rediscover the how and why for the meanings behind movements in kata that have been lost over time. Most people involved in this movement make no bones about admitting this, so I am not sure why it is offensive to talk about it. If the meaning for a movement is not effective and they cannot find a way to make that meaning effective (for whatever reason), then maybe for them it is best to change the meaning if only for the sake of trying to get something out of the training. My only take on this is that people focus too much on the "what" rather than the "how".

Edit: You added some to your posts while I was taking forever to write my response.



All I am talking about is that in my experience the gap between the simple "block then punch then this then that" and what seem to me to be more "advanced" techniques is large.

That really is the crux of our differing viewpoints. Our meanings are the simple punch-block explanations. It is how we execute them as well as how we move our body in between these simple movements that we focus our advanced learning. We have some simple grappling, but the vast majority of meanings are striking and blocking.

trevorg
28th August 2007, 11:10
This is becoming an esoteric argument whereas, in truth, everyone is generally singing from the same hymn sheet. If any problems or misunderstandings have arisen it is due to perception and experience.

As with all threads there are those who have practised long and know little, those who have practised little and know a lot, those who are young and have a wise head, and those who are older but with little going on up top (such as me).

However, when we explore an issue such as this we all need to understand that not everybody has the same perception or indeed comes at it the same way, because it depends on what they were taught. That is unalterable assuming the student remains where they are.

In general terms, and for fear of repeating myself and others, bunkai as applied to a kata is fixed. The flexibility or interpretation does not come from being a free spirit or discovering a new or even more practical and better way of doing the technique, but by continuous and lengthy practice because through that the student discovers more and more from the original technique and as one's knowledge expands so does the technique.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
31st August 2007, 19:16
Hi again,

I would agree that there are at least 3 of us singing from the same sheet, but I suspect that we are the minority rather than the majority. I looked back on these posts (by now the topic has circulated throughout a variety of online MA groups...again....but I must admit this was the most informative and interesting discussion) and had to ask myself what the intent of the original post was that began it all. (I must apologize to Zachariah Zinn as I thought he was the originator, but since looking back it appears it was Rick Michaels instead, sorry Zachariah and Rick) I suspect that the intent of the original post was that the originator was looking for answers about his own bunkai (or kata) and the effectiveness of it. I think I know the answer by this quote: "I would rather slightly modify the kata to make the bunkai more realistic and effective than to continue to perform a contrived bunkai." I would not like to practice an unrealistic, ineffective, contrived bunkai either, nor would anyone I suspect, however, I think there is a strong agreement that it is not ok to modify the kata either. So, one has to ask themselves wherein the problem lies, if either of these are the case, how one recognizes that, and how to go about fixing the situation. Perhaps that's where this discussion should lead to, if we are to drift at all.

Are there those that would like to give their advice?

Thanks,
Sheree

trevorg
31st August 2007, 19:37
Hi again,

I would agree that there are at least 3 of us singing from the same sheet, but I suspect that we are the minority rather than the majority. I looked back on these posts (by now the topic has circulated throughout a variety of online MA groups...again....but I must admit this was the most informative and interesting discussion) and had to ask myself what the intent of the original post was that began it all. (I must apologize to Zachariah Zinn as I thought he was the originator, but since looking back it appears it was Rick Michaels instead, sorry Zachariah and Rick) I suspect that the intent of the original post was that the originator was looking for answers about his own bunkai (or kata) and the effectiveness of it. I think I know the answer by this quote: "I would rather slightly modify the kata to make the bunkai more realistic and effective than to continue to perform a contrived bunkai." I would not like to practice an unrealistic, ineffective, contrived bunkai either, nor would anyone I suspect, however, I think there is a strong agreement that it is not ok to modify the kata either. So, one has to ask themselves wherein the problem lies, if either of these are the case, how one recognizes that, and how to go about fixing the situation. Perhaps that's where this discussion should lead to, if we are to drift at all.

Are there those that would like to give their advice?

Thanks,
Sheree

Yes, looking back through the thread it was Rick who posed the original questions and also that he made the comment about slightly modifying the kata to make the bunkai more effective. So,Sheree, I agree with your comments about not wishing to modify the kata. Ergo,the bunkai cannot be altered.

If the kata doesnt work to the bunkai the student wishes it to,then they need to go back to the source and discover the inner meanings of the kata from which they will discover the bunkai that flows from it and in so learning bunkai they will equally discover numerous variations.

To try and recognise the problem a student must first understand the original purpose (of why they are doing something). I am reminded of the book "Five years, one kata" which is the study by Bill Burgar on gojushiho, which may be a good starting point.

To fix it takes years, and perhaps not even then......

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
31st August 2007, 21:00
I just can't seem to leave this thread alone.

Anyway, I think part of my problem here is that it sounds like i'm hearing that the only proper "traditional" answer for bunkai is that there is only one intrepretation per technique, and I just don't think that's true across the board.

There are plenty of traditional practitioners who don't subscribe to the "one intepretation" school of thought, if you want a somewhat old school example check out Okinawan Goju Ryu II by Seikichi Toguchi, he talks about the rules of Kaisai No Genri there, I don't get the impression that the concept is some new fangled thing.

I can see the value to your viewpoint, I just feel like you guys are making the assumption that people train this way because they don't know the correct bunkai or something, there is plenty of that out there, but it's not always the case.

I will see if I can find the pages on Kasai No Genri somewhere from the book and I will post them.

There is plenty of traditional precedent for having multiple interpretations. Or maybe more like multiple variation on the same theme?

That said, I agree with what Trevor has said about the in depth study thing, it's better to know one thing that really works than 10 that just kind of "fit".


Edit: Ok, found a link to the passage, please post if it doesn't work:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zfFaPBlINPwC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=rules+of+kaisai+no+genri+toguchi+seikichi&source=web&ots=oBzP_BOwak&sig=rQ9ZfhKHIcm2rCjLZVOU3xjPHUQ#PPA49,M1

The relevant part to the discussion is "The Method Of Kaisai"

ZachZinn
31st August 2007, 21:21
Sorry for the double post, edit function no longer available.

I also wanted to point out that the idea of using "principles" in kata/forms to deduce application is not unique to karate and i've seen plenty of it from Chinese MA communities as well, pick up virtually any book by Yang, Jwing Ming and you will see this.

I think it's appropriate to mention at this time that most of my training time so far has been spent simply learning to move in kata, and only more recently am I introduced to more bunkai-oyo, so I agree that the kata itself should never be changed. I just don't agree that there must be a rigid one to one bunkai for it.

trevorg
31st August 2007, 23:22
Zach, the reason you keep coming back is because this thread cuts to the heart of karate, which is why and some others also contribute to a very valuable discussion.

The answer lies in the earlier part of the article which discusses sanchin dachi:- "it is an unnatural stance,when practised it is a training method designed to understand how to stand firmly. When learnt,the student is ready to learn more advanced fighting techniques". And so it is with kata bunkai, I believe.

The article goes on to say "some karateka change kata of their particular style into siimplified movements. In other words they transfer the kata's particular budo movements into those of daily life. By doing this one can no longer condition one's self for budo techniques. Worse yet,the precious ancient techniques hidden in kata disappear". Further, "I believe it is my mission to transmit the valuable techniques (of goju ryu) unchanged to future generations".

So, to my mind, therein lies the answer. Nothing one learns in terms of basics or kata sets one up as immediately able to deal with advanced fighting techniques. However, as one progresses over the years and reaches more understanding of the purpose of the basic studies so the mind expands (and the body follows) to the extent that the basics one has learnt eventually have more meaning and therefore a wider application.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
31st August 2007, 23:54
Well obviously I agree with the quoted portions, but once we take that as a given then it seems there is some difference in opinion in HOW people are supposed to go about learning these "advanced techniques"...

I'm still not sure what you, Sheree and John are trying to say, are you saying "there are only X techniques per kata" or not?

Do you think there is only one correct interpretation?

I realize sometimes the line between "how" and "what" can get blurred in a discussion like this; if you took 2 Judo and Jujutsu instructors and asked them side by side to teach a few techniques, my guess is the "how" in some cases would be different enough to approach a "what".....if you get my meaning.

I'm not sure it's even possible to avoid some personal intepretation, after all a big part of what you learn is simply from your teacher, no matter how hard you try to "preserve" anything.

Am I making sense here or should I give up now?

trevorg
1st September 2007, 00:14
Well obviously I agree with the quoted portions, but once we take that as a given then it seems there is some difference in opinion in HOW people are supposed to go about learning these "advanced techniques"...

I'm still not sure what you, Sheree and John are trying to say, are you saying "there are only X techniques per kata" or not?

Do you think there is only one correct interpretation?

I realize sometimes the line between "how" and "what" can get blurred in a discussion like this; if you took 2 Judo and Jujutsu instructors and asked them side by side to teach a few techniques, my guess is the "how" in some cases would be different enough to approach a "what".....if you get my meaning.

I'm not sure it's even possible to avoid some personal intepretation, after all a big part of what you learn is simply from your teacher, no matter how hard you try to "preserve" anything.

Am I making sense here or should I give up now?

Oh, you should never give up, Zach. I hope I am right when I say I believe there is only one application in response to each kata technique. I do not think the question of interpretation comes into it because it is not for the student to interpret, until they have sufficient learning under their belt to understand all the subtleties.

No one person delivers a kata or bunkai the same because of their physiology and level of understanding. However, a block is a block (for example) and in bunkai you would not change the block to suit the circumstances, it will naturally adapt over a period of learning as a student arrives at an understanding of distance and timing and the assessment of their uke.

If then we consider moving forward to a real life fight where, as I have said before, one needs to assess all matters such as the environment, opponent and self in relation to all this etc and assuming one has practised thoroughly in basics and kumite then, by all means, adapt the application to suit the circumstances. However, IMHO that position can't be reached until the basics are mastered.

Osu
Trevor

Shorin Ryuu
1st September 2007, 06:46
As usual, just the way I understand it, which is Itosu Anko-> Chibana Chosin -> Pat Nakata -> Me.


Zach, the reason you keep coming back is because this thread cuts to the heart of karate, which is why and some others also contribute to a very valuable discussion.

That's pretty true. I guess that's why none of us can stay away from this thread.



I'm still not sure what you, Sheree and John are trying to say, are you saying "there are only X techniques per kata" or not?

Do you think there is only one correct interpretation?

I realize sometimes the line between "how" and "what" can get blurred in a discussion like this; if you took 2 Judo and Jujutsu instructors and asked them side by side to teach a few techniques, my guess is the "how" in some cases would be different enough to approach a "what".....if you get my meaning.

I'm not sure it's even possible to avoid some personal intepretation, after all a big part of what you learn is simply from your teacher, no matter how hard you try to "preserve" anything.

Am I making sense here or should I give up now?

Like I said, it's not necessarily a one-to-one meaning per movement, as there are often 3 levels of meaning per movement. However, as far as execution goes, there is only one way for each movement. To be honest, I am guilty of keeping the 2 more basic levels of meaning in mind and training more for the 3rd level. If you are following a coherent methodology, then there really is only one way to produce optimum results for a given technique.

The personal interpretation put in by most people was either a result of not learning enough of the original meaning/execution or making it look more aesthetic. I am not ruling out the possibility of personal interpretation, but the movement and the meaning should stay the same (and then you can talk about principles). Again, advanced interpretation doesn't mean modifying the techniques on the outside, but how you do them.

A perfect example of this would be the grip and regrip that is lacking in almost all Itosu-derived schools of karate, which are many. Itosu and Chibana always taught that the fist and forearm must be rock-hard and tight, even before initiating a technique. It is possible to do this and still have loose upper arms, shoulders, etc, so there is not worry about being tight and muscle-bound. Yet almost every Itosu-derived school out there does not do this, even though it was a trademark of Itosu technique. I would wager that a lot of this is due to either ignorance of the meaning for it or the simple fact that aesthetically, constantly gripping and regripping looks pretty sloppy. Yet you get rid of that, you negate the possibility of the kind of power that made the Itosu/Chibana methodology legendary. There is a lot more involved, of course, and the tight fist is only the tip of the iceberg, but you get my drift.

For those that don't have the luxury of having been taught everything as close to the original as possible, I would recommend focusing on how to generate power, how to close distance, and how to be strong even in between movements, especially while stepping, which is a weakness I've seen in many karateka. That is of course my Itosu/Chibana methodology bias. This advice is even more applicable to Itosu-derived schools, as that is where their kata came from.

trevorg
1st September 2007, 23:33
It's a pity that our e-budo friends in other arts do not contribute to this thread so we may have their perspective.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
2nd September 2007, 01:40
It's a pity that our e-budo friends in other arts do not contribute to this thread so we may have their perspective.

Osu
Trevor

Yes, I agree. However, I think one of the reasons that no one else has jumped in is because it is so hard to verbalize that which we are trying to discuss. It's the essence of karate really.

I know I'm at a loss as to how to explain to Zachariah that which has taken me over 30 years of training to understand. And, while talking and doing in person would be better, it still is impossible to verbalize or even demonstrate a lot of, what is now, innate knowledge. I get chastized by my partner when, every now and again, I express my frustration that my students fail to understand, and therefore do, what I think is obvious and basic. I am reminded, sternly, that I've had many more years doing and getting to the place where I am with my understanding. And I know, that this amount of time, this small glimpse of understanding, is just a taste of what I hope the next 20 to 30 years will bring. I hope that which my sensei, kindly, has been drilling into me, must just take hold.

I have had the good fortune to have been, for the better part my karate life, a student of a source (i.e., an Okinawan who has trained with the legends/founders/innovators) or, early on in my training, a student of his. I understood, perhaps at the stage where Zachariah is, what I was searching for and set out to find a source of that knowledge. It hasn't been easy. It still isn't. But it's not impossible. It's just a matter of priorities. Where does this quest for knowledge rate on your scale. If it's right up there, then you have to set out on the path to get it.

My point is, to Zachariah (and forgive me for being presumptuous as I may be barking up the wrong tree, entirely), is that I remember being where you are. Again, forgive me, but I'm thinking (because you mentioned your rank and therefore I'm assuming about 5 - 7 years of training) of that stage in training/development. I think it is imperative that you ask these questions, that you look for answers, that you not be satisfied. But, at the the same time, while doing so, to be able to recongize that which has truth.

It's very hard for us to distiguish, on an online discussion, who and what is real, and who and what is not. I can only say from my perspective, from what I've read, that what Trevor Gilbert and John Oberle speak of rings true and should be given some merit. Training within parameters is hard and people want to venture outside them thinking that will broaden their knowledge. (I think one must think outside the parameters just not train outside them) I think what Trevor and John are saying is that the parameters will give you the depth of knowledge that you are looking for. I tell my students that we work within these parameters so that, in time, there will be none. But, I'm afraid, that isn't for decades.

I know this is a drift but I wanted to encourage Zachariah to keep searching as his knowledge is increasing even if it seems he keeps bumping into a wall . I, for one, have benefited from this discussion.

Thank you all.

Sheree

Sheree Adams
2nd September 2007, 01:53
Oh, and BTW, my turn is coming soon. Five weeks from today I'll be back in Okinawa at my Sensei's. Again, and to the point, it won't be anything new that we'll be doing. Just working on, and towards, an improved version.

Take care,
Sheree

trevorg
2nd September 2007, 14:06
It's all about self-discovery, I think. We are shown a basic technique and the trick is to practise that technique until more is revealed to you by your inner self.

It was Funakoshi Gichin wasnt it who, sitting on his death bed and still practising the basic punch said "at last I believe I understand it".

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
3rd September 2007, 03:55
It's all about self-discovery, I think. We are shown a basic technique and the trick is to practise that technique until more is revealed to you by your inner self.

It was Funakoshi Gichin wasnt it who, sitting on his death bed and still practising the basic punch said "at last I believe I understand it".

Osu
Trevor

I think that may be one of those karate myths, frankly. Sounds way too like someone writing a hagiography.

trevorg
3rd September 2007, 09:40
I think that may be one of those karate myths, frankly. Sounds way too like someone writing a hagiography.

Might well be, but it sums up pretty neatly what it is all about.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
3rd September 2007, 12:53
Zach

You said this earlier "I just feel like you guys are making the assumption that people train this way because they don't know the correct bunkai or something, there is plenty of that out there, but it's not always the case".

I would just like to say, because I feel it is important, that we are not trying to be patronising, pretentious or condescending, nor are we doing the "been there done that got the t-shirt", and nor are we passing down the knowledge gained over many years training to the uninitiated, as it is a continuous learning curve in which we all participate for the totality of our lifespan.

I do so agree with Sheree North that it is extremely difficult to verbalise something that has such deep meaning as this subject. I find it easier to visualise a comparison. For example, I mentioned Chi Sau in an earlier post and I reminded of a TV programme I watched last year which showed two Chinese masters practising Chi Sau on a rooftop. After a while one got through with a strike, so they stopped to discuss it at some length. The issue was not who was the better practitioner, but HOW the strike had got through and what went wrong with the defensive application. And so they did it again and he that had let his defence slip was now more appraised. Equally as importantly was that he who had got through with the strike was now better appraised as to how he might deal with a change in his opponent's attitude.

I would like to think that if two karate practitioners of equal status practising kata bunkai would do the same because both are exploring from their own perspective. Nevertheless, it must be done within the set parameters.

osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
3rd September 2007, 14:44
Ok, last post on the topic, I promise.


You said this earlier "I just feel like you guys are making the assumption that people train this way because they don't know the correct bunkai or something, there is plenty of that out there, but it's not always the case".

I would just like to say, because I feel it is important, that we are not trying to be patronising, pretentious or condescending, nor are we doing the "been there done that got the t-shirt", and nor are we passing down the knowledge gained over many years training to the uninitiated, as it is a continuous learning curve in which we all participate for the totality of our lifespan.


I would like to echo Trevor Gilbert's comments above. It's the continuous learning that is provided by the practice of kata's form and bunkai that I feel so passionate about. What I've been trying to say, and perhaps others as well, is that it's easy to dismiss a "simple" technique which, if delved into, is quite complex when you take into consideration everything involved in doing it with maximum effectiveness. And, that understanding and ability, takes time (years) and, should be in a constant state of improvement.

While training yesterday morning I was thinking about this thread and what I would not have learned if I had not spent the time working the techniques within the form and bunkai of the kata. For an example, I would not have understood how the impact is changed/increased because of the slight heel shift in the third technique of Chinto nor would I have understood the correlation between the second and third techniques and how that changes the meaning/application/end result of both techniques. If I had not been taught the either the form, the movement/stance/transition, or bunkai of these techniques, then I could not begin to understand what the application or concept was that was meant to be imparted by the techniques of this kata. And, this may just be the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg, either or, is fine.

Does this make any sense? I apologize for my lack of communication skills if it doesn't. My point is, again, is that it is not always apparent what is going on in kata and bunkai and it takes delving into, usually with the help of a knowledgable teacher, to pull out what the lesson or intent in doing something in a particular fashion is. And, an instructor can only show a student something that is they are able to grasp at that point in their learning process. That being said, that doesn't mean that when a green belt learns the bunkai that it is with the same emphasis, although it may look externally like the same technique, that the dan levels are working on. I think this is some of what John was meaning also. I know my understanding of the same thing has evolved over the years and I expect it to keep evolving.

And the question of how one goes about learning the advanced way of doing techniques? Mai nichi, mai nichi.....

Take care all.. this has been a very interesting discussion and I look forward to reading about other's thoughts on training.

Sheree

shoshinkan
3rd September 2007, 21:48
Hi Rick,

I have read this thread with interest, some very good contributions from some very good martial artists IMO.

Im going to awnser, as simply as I can from my perspective/expierience your origonal questions -

1. 'Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?',

yes (as kata is the core of what we do), but generally these are personal to the sensei and not the ryu, although common bunkai of course exsist, as they are obvious and work well, and often passed from ones own Sensei.

2. 'If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?',

absolutly one to many (often 2-4 core ones), although often simple same starting points.

3.'How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?'

for Bunkai work absolutly none, it's the same as in the kata (ie to analyse), it may/does change in application on a 'live' partner, or it may not.......

4. 'Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?'

positivly encouraged, and has been done for many generations from what I can tell.

We clearly are not as organised as some of the more modern ryu/budo led approaches, many of which are excellent of course,

'karatejutsu' (to coin a phrase) is different in approach IMO - it is personal to the student and the required situation, and it changes with each Sensei - albeit around the kata.

As a Bunkai example, sometimes a step is just a step, however sometimes its a throw, sometimes its a foot pin, sometimes its a knee strike etc etc, but in the kata its just a step................. :)

Hope that is of some interest and is of some use to the thread.

Jonwey
29th September 2007, 00:26
Years ago, I was told by my instructor (jujutsu) that all karate (?Okinawan?) was Shotokanized (i.e.; that Shotokan structure and content had dictated or effected all modern ryuha of Karate-do.) This was how it was explained to us back then:

Shotokan and Kodokan (Judo) were developed under the same roof (literally, at the kodokan main hall.) The founders knew each other and exchanged techiniques and structure (but that Kodokan, or specifically, the Japanese, were dominant in the process of formation, even of the Okinawan systems represented by Shotokan karate-do.) This much, we know, is a fact of the development of both Judo and Karate.

The structure and content of karate was impacted by Jujutsu structure and technique (Kodokanized, as Judo.) Most (but not all) of the kata of Karate, and the kumite-kata ("sparring drills"), reflected an adaptation of traditional Jujutsu kata. Jujutsu kata are done Japanese style (two man sets) whereas the Okinawan arts approched it Chinese style as one man sets.

Jujutsu kata are not strung together into long sequences, they are about 3-5 movements long only. The statement was that Karate's kata were composed of strung together kumite-kata. Kumite-kata were, in part, derived from the katas of Jujutsu (specifically, from the schools of the Kodokan, which were largely Yoshin-ryu schools.) They needed somewhere to stick the common katas (kodokanized jujutsu katas) and so these were grouped, by Shotokan, under "kumite-kata" and were approached Chinese style, as one man sets. But sometimes as two man sets, when as kumite-kata is also seen.

That Kata-bunkai are the "intrepretation(s)" of kata, this information then, if accurate (I really don't know if it is?) would be significant. The original (Kodokanized) jujutsu kata would shed some light on what the Okinawan arts are indicating as fighting techniques.

I was shown (and since then seen many times over) kumite-kata (3-5 movement fighting drills) that obviously bear direct relationship to known Yoshin/Takagi katas (as one might expect, given these claims.) For example, there is the Jujutsu kata "Irimi" that karate kumite-kata does with a spear hand, whereas (near) the same movements are done in "Irimi" with either a hanbo or kodachi. Likewise, the Jujutsu kata "Ichimonji", karate's Kumite-kata has similarly done with a sword hand.

Since Bunkai are explanations of kata, it might be helpful to know that (some of) these katas are the kumite-kata strung together, and that these kumite-kata originally had names as Jujutsu kata (such as "Irimi", "Ichimonji", "Uen" and so forth.)

Karate does NOT have names for these individual kumite-kata, and even in the Jujutsu schools in question, the names weren't always uniform, but most of them definetly had common names and movements (which, of the movements) definetly do correspond to the kumite-kata.

That Kata-bunkai are the "intrepretation(s)" of kata, this information then, if accurate, would be significant.

Trevor Johnson
29th September 2007, 02:06
Welcome to e-budo!

Just to get the administrivia out of the way, forum rules require that you post your full name in your sig. [/administrivia]

As for the rest, from my knowledge, there are certainly two-man drills in Okinawan karate, and they existed pre-Shotokan for certain. For example, there are pictures of Motobu Choki (who didn't have anything at all to do with Shotokan or Kodokan) doing two-man fighting drills which consisted of 3-5 moves. I've also seen them in Okinawan Goju. While I will certainly agree that Shotokan developed a distinctly Japanese aesthetic, I don't agree that this affected the rest of the karate world the same way. Further, the long sequences ARE the original Okinawan sequences, and have nothing to do with the Kodokan. Kusanku, or Kanku-dai for the Japanese types, was just as long and convoluted when Funakoshi learnt it in Okinawa as it was when he arrived at the Kodokan for the first time. Same with what the JKA knows as the Heian series of kata, developed by Funakoshi's teacher, Itosu.

Now, there was a great deal of cross-fertilization between Chinese and Japanese martial ideas on Okinawa, since they traded heavily with both nations for centuries. I think that the idea of 3-5 move sequences, however, is not just from that cross-fertilization, since if I recall correctly you see things like that in English manuals of stick-fighting, pugilism, and in french savate. I think it may be that 3-5 moves is the right length for a fight, if you don't manage to settle it in one.

Actually, the koryu bugei, from which the various jujutsu arts are descended, would often use 3-4 moves in their kata. The fifth move was added on for a variety of reasons, the most basic being that ending a kata on shi was considered really bad luck. The finishing moves were often added on to fix that, and were often flashier moves which could be used as crowd-pleasers. The hidden interpretations of the kata usually had the uke dead by 4.

ZachZinn
29th September 2007, 02:48
All Chinese MA's using solo routines that I know of also have 2 man routines,

I find it highly questionable that karate yakusoku kumite come from Jujitsu for a whole host of reasons.

However, it seems there is a school of thought that says that solo kata evolved from 2 man kata, Seikichi Toguchi mentions this in Okinawan Goju-Ryu Vol 2.

Honestly it sounds like your instructor was just trying to do the whole "everything comes from our style" type thing.

Having had some (not alot but some) exposure to Jujitsu kata, I don't think karate yakusoku kumites come from Jujitsu.

Jonwey
30th September 2007, 19:19
Hi guys,

I see your point(s).

My full name? My account is rather old, it was the way things were done at the time, but the terms were maybe different? I'll see if I can remember how to enter that in the profile.

Actually, my instructor meant that there was a connection between Kodokan and Shotokan (and hence the connection remained apparent in all styles of karate related thereto.) Not that the techniques came from (any particular) school of Jujutsu, or that Karate was derived from same. I tried to express this, but I worded the remarks wrong.

Personally, I've never really understood the relationship to Shotokan, or what relevance Shotokan has to modern Karate, it's treated like just another style of Karate... but it's a "kan". Not really sure? I just thought the connection might be relevant to "Kata bunkai" as a subject.

ZachZinn
30th September 2007, 21:26
Actually, my instructor meant that there was a connection between Kodokan and Shotokan (and hence the connection remained apparent in all styles of karate related thereto.) Not that the techniques came from (any particular) school of Jujutsu, or that Karate was derived from same. I tried to express this, but I worded the remarks wrong.

Well, not to discredit the influence of Shotokan on the whole, but it's influence is pretty much solely on Japanese styles of Karate, and pretty much all styles of Karate that I know of have some form of 2 man drills.

Thing is Funakoshi was trying to turn Karate into Budo proper, with a similar curriculum and training method as Judo, and thus have it be accepted as a Japanese martial art. That's the gist at any rate.

It's been years since I've read Funakoshi's autobiography but I remember him going on and on about standardizing the teaching method and curriculum of Karate in the same vein as Judo, Kendo, etc.



Personally, I've never really understood the relationship to Shotokan, or what relevance Shotokan has to modern Karate, it's treated like just another style of Karate... but it's a "kan". Not really sure? I just thought the connection might be relevant to "Kata bunkai" as a subject.

Here's the wikipedia entry for Shotokan, basically Shotokan is derived in large measure from Shorin Ryu, Shotokan kata are changed versions of Shorin kata, with different names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotokan

dusty1
1st October 2007, 11:41
Well, not to discredit the influence of Shotokan on the whole, but it's influence is pretty much solely on Japanese styles of Karate, and pretty much all styles of Karate that I know of have some form of 2 man drills.

Thing is Funakoshi was trying to turn Karate into Budo proper, with a similar curriculum and training method as Judo, and thus have it be accepted as a Japanese martial art. That's the gist at any rate.

It's been years since I've read Funakoshi's autobiography but I remember him going on and on about standardizing the teaching method and curriculum of Karate in the same vein as Judo, Kendo, etc.



Here's the wikipedia entry for Shotokan, basically Shotokan is derived in large measure from Shorin Ryu, Shotokan kata are changed versions of Shorin kata, with different names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotokan


what are you talking about

Trevor Johnson
1st October 2007, 19:03
Well, not to discredit the influence of Shotokan on the whole, but it's influence is pretty much solely on Japanese styles of Karate, and pretty much all styles of Karate that I know of have some form of 2 man drills.

I would say that most styles of karate have been influenced by Shotokan in some way, even if only to reject it and its focus. Shotokan and its derivatives are the most wide-spread forms of karate around, so it's probably inevitable.

Also, btw, I would like to mention that it's not just the Kodokan that may have influenced Shotokan. If it were, then karate kumite would probably have a lot more grabbing and a lot more short-ranged attitude. They developed kumite based largely on influence from kendo, which is why the range is so long.

2groggy
1st October 2007, 23:13
Thing is Funakoshi was trying to turn Karate into Budo proper, with a similar curriculum and training method as Judo, and thus have it be accepted as a Japanese martial art. That's the gist at any rate.
I've always suspected that the use of a Judo training facility actually caused the removal of a lot of stand-up grappling and throws from the karate body of knowledge. After all, judo students would know these types of techniques, so why would Funakoshi teach what they already knew? Does anyone else notice that Okinawan styles have shorter ranges and more joint locks and breaks?

Trevor Johnson
2nd October 2007, 02:51
I've always suspected that the use of a Judo training facility actually caused the removal of a lot of stand-up grappling and throws from the karate body of knowledge. After all, judo students would know these types of techniques, so why would Funakoshi teach what they already knew? Does anyone else notice that Okinawan styles have shorter ranges and more joint locks and breaks?


Yes. Also more grab and hit. If you've ever trained with Harry Cook, his Goju bunkai for Seisan includes what he calls 'loafin,' or headbutting.

2groggy
2nd October 2007, 03:37
...Harry Cook, his Goju bunkai for Seisan includes what he calls 'loafin,' or headbutting.
Okay, I'll bite. Where?

ZachZinn
2nd October 2007, 06:09
Okay, I'll bite. Where?

At least as I was taught, it comes after the the 3 punch/shuto/nukite sequence where your hands come to something akin to sanchin kamae, then you "slide" forward and hands come down in front of your waste....bad description on my part but hopefully you get the idea....i'm gonna assume this is what Trevor is talking about, as I think it's a pretty widely accepted interpretation.

ON the subject, check out Morio Hiagonna doing Seisan as a visual aide.....it's freakin' beautiful too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjddaBWugLs

Trevor Johnson
2nd October 2007, 06:35
At least as I was taught, it comes after the the 3 punch/shuto/nukite sequence where your hands come to something akin to sanchin kamae, then you "slide" forward and hands come down in front of your waste....bad description on my part but hopefully you get the idea....i'm gonna assume this is what Trevor is talking about, as I think it's a pretty widely accepted interpretation.

ON the subject, check out Morio Hiagonna doing Seisan as a visual aide.....it's freakin' beautiful too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjddaBWugLs

That's it, yeah. Nice glasgow handshake in the middle of your okinawan kata...

2groggy
2nd October 2007, 14:02
At least as I was taught, it comes after the the 3 punch/shuto/nukite sequence where your hands come to something akin to sanchin kamae, then you "slide" forward and hands come down in front of your waste....bad description on my part but hopefully you get the idea....i'm gonna assume this is what Trevor is talking about, as I think it's a pretty widely accepted interpretation.

ON the subject, check out Morio Hiagonna doing Seisan as a visual aide.....it's freakin' beautiful too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjddaBWugLs
Thanks Zach. I'll have to go through that a few times. I find myself fascinated with the differences that develop in katas between lineages. I do see a few.

ZachZinn
4th October 2007, 02:52
Thanks Zach. I'll have to go through that a few times. I find myself fascinated with the differences that develop in katas between lineages. I do see a few.


This is mildy different than the way I was taught, but not by alot, and i've gotta say the performance is very impressive!

trevorg
5th October 2007, 17:12
Your thoughts would be appreciated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGF4y7YZwb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cwHO9KW30

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
5th October 2007, 19:16
Your thoughts would be appreciated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGF4y7YZwb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cwHO9KW30

Osu
Trevor

Impressive and very skillfull, but I feel that it's mainly just for show.

I don't know either of these kata though.

ZachZinn
5th October 2007, 21:38
Here's one that I like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmExIWEglSo

Nyuck3X
6th October 2007, 03:57
Isn't that Chinen Sensei not Taira?

ZachZinn
6th October 2007, 05:19
Isn't that Chinen Sensei not Taira?

I don't think that's Chinen Sensei, but not sure, at any rate I think it is a nice sepai bunkai.

Nyuck3X
6th October 2007, 05:59
I don't think that's Chinen Sensei, but not sure, at any rate I think it is a nice sepai bunkai.

Yes, very nice.

shoshinkan
6th October 2007, 10:17
Your thoughts would be appreciated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGF4y7YZwb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cwHO9KW30

Osu
Trevor

from a modern karatedo and sports perspective I would imagine those 2 performances were at the top level.

I found them very entertaining, and can appriciate the work and time investment to put such things together.

I just can't understand why anyone would bother to do so? LOL

Some of the Bunkai was good, if only attacks came at us in those ways,

often it was lacking in making functional sense but looked really pretty!

:nin:

Victor Smith
7th October 2007, 04:48
Jim,

Isn't there always value in learning to execute clean precise technique?

Even public performance of that training serves the value of cementing belief in that technique. Being able to believe you can make a technique work is as important as the practice to make it so. Shaping your intent is as important as the technique itself.

Just because they show it in a performance would that preclude that they don't in turn work advanced training as in random attacks, etc.?

In my experience any public performance is hardly more than the tip of anyones training. I don't belive you can do more than take what you see as what it is and not as a commentary on the depth of a program.

I like the precision of those executions, at the same time they represent a shape of that art that I personally do not take, I see a different range of application potential available.

But I recongnize that is a personal view.

shoshinkan
7th October 2007, 09:28
fair enough Victor, and for sure my comments were limited to simply the material presented.

However my experience does lead me to believe that this sort of 'chorography' is highly likey to take up ALOT of their training time as they are looking to win tournaments with it, or perhaps present at tournaments. (and they are of course very good at what they do).

Re your comments about intent, yes of course that is a significant element of functional karate,

However true intent will not manifest in a person until they are actally dealing in the right distance, with adrenalin produced from fear of ones own safety.

Now of course this is difficult to replicate in the dojo but to a degree it can be done with resonable safety, I don't feel the pressure of a tournament performance replicates this.

Off tempo, common methods of assault with the associate pushing, verbal activity and intent do IMO, which is what I spend my dojo time working on.

good luck to modern karatedo and sports karate I left that behind several years ago now and haven't looked back. :)

trevorg
7th October 2007, 16:04
Apparently the performers are an Italian national team:
Performers:Luca Valdesi, Lucio Maurino, Figuccio Vincenzo.
You can see more on www.wkfkarate.com so a thread on youtube suggests.

Jim, you said true intent will not manifest in a person until they are actally dealing in the right distance, with adrenalin produced from fear of ones own safety. IMO it is not possible to replicate this in the dojo for reasons of health and safety,that is unless you leave the rules and health and safety aside and go at it with REAL intent. The only other way is to practice by role playing,which is what it appears to me you are doing.

Kata bunkai is, as we might describe it in our western world, a form of role playing that allows each partner to react to a prescribed set of moves.

With regards to your thoughts on the time they spend preparing for competition and the like, it may be the case these guys practice 7 days a week,every week. Who knows, but it would be wrong to think that is perhaps all they do or are capable of. What they show is what we do. It just happens to be in the public arena instead of the dojo.

Osu
Trevor




Osu
Trevor

shoshinkan
7th October 2007, 20:32
Hi Trevor,

I guess we all have our views, generally based on our experiences, and sometimes they will be different.

This would be one of those times, so with respect im going to leave this conversation as I have made my thoughts clear.

Better you and Victor chew the fat on this one as my 'open mind' seems to have closed alot........

:)

ZachZinn
7th October 2007, 23:45
There is no question in my mind that the guys presented are very skilled, I think it's just the intent of the demo that's bugging Jim, it's obviously put together to be flashy, which is ok I suppose.

I think alot of us have a visceral reaction to this kind of thing based on bad past experiences, without having some other context in terms of training though, i'm not gonna assume this is how they regularly train.

After all a demo is a demo.

My preference for a demo would be more along the lines of what they actually do, but then again what most karateka actually do is not always palatable to the general public.

shoshinkan
8th October 2007, 08:43
it's sports karatedo?

its the national team!

Im going to view from afar on this one guys as I will only really bring the conversation down, something I would like to try and stop doing online........

Essentially the clips represent excellent sports karatedo, something I don't do.

im out of here.................... :)

trevorg
8th October 2007, 09:46
The general theme of the thread, which has been extremely interesting and stimulating, is kata bunkai and this is a clip that represents someone's interpretation of it. OK, its not everyone's cup of tea but then what I do isnt, and nor is yours and nor are others. Thats the whole point of discussion.

I can't see the rationale of tossing in a comment and when that creates further discussion to back off. Discussion is discussion and that in itself is stimulating and is always worthy of continuation.

My comments, I guess in particular, should not be construed as a personal attack on what you do, Jim, which would never be my intention as after all that is what makes everyone different, as ma practitioners and people.

Time to chill, Jim.

osu
Trevor

shoshinkan
8th October 2007, 15:46
no problem Trevor,

in fairness perhaps I shouldn't have made any comments in the first place - if you have nothing good to say keep quiet!

My view has been expressed, and whilst some discussion would be interesting im not sure I can be bothered to go down that road.

my bad, im in the gendai budo section and forgot that !

And Trevor please don't worry about me thinking your attacking what I do,

I certainly don't think that, and to do that you would have to train with me a little while to see what we do, something we simply haven't done.

As you say we are all different and long may that last!

trevorg
8th October 2007, 18:15
Jim

And here's a big hug for you. :)

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
9th October 2007, 07:16
Here's some more....do you guys in kyokushin do Seiyunchin kata Trevor?


a couple for seiyunchin kata:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYO1Js0eWKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqY-bvUyrSk

I think this one is maybe for Sanseiryu, but i'm not sure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7JKYbu3-C4

And another Sepai one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhDyabE6Uv4

What do yous think?

trevorg
9th October 2007, 11:01
In kyokushin it is termed seienchin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHUon0-bfP8

This is from a demo at Crystal Palace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-pLkaIJFI

osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
10th October 2007, 00:13
In kyokushin it is termed seienchin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHUon0-bfP8

This is from a demo at Crystal Palace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-pLkaIJFI

osu
Trevor

Thanks, those were cool. That demo looks old school!!

trevorg
10th October 2007, 08:06
No idea when it was taken but the give away is probably the crank handle camera.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
10th October 2007, 21:08
Something new i've been thinking about for our long running bunkai discussion:

Do you think that in the "old days" of karate, lets say prior to WWII, more time was spent teaching waza with partners or teaching solo kata?
I realize we have a set amount of scattered historical information to draw conclusions from, i'm just looking for an educated guess on the subject.

How do you think the teaching method is different today?

Is it better or worse?

trevorg
10th October 2007, 22:58
My guess is that it was much the same as it is these days. Perhaps more smaller groups training together under a teacher, that is unless a student lost his teacher or moved away, or maybe lived in the middle of nowhere in which case they would probably train alone.

No doubt the historians among members will be able to throw better light on the subject.

The question that could be asked is; if someone trained alone how could they possibly learn bunkai ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
12th October 2007, 05:45
My guess is that it was much the same as it is these days. Perhaps more smaller groups training together under a teacher, that is unless a student lost his teacher or moved away, or maybe lived in the middle of nowhere in which case they would probably train alone.

No doubt the historians among members will be able to throw better light on the subject.

The question that could be asked is; if someone trained alone how could they possibly learn bunkai ?

Osu
Trevor

Well, I assume that maybe the bunkai would be the in class with a partner stuff, and maybe practicing solo kata would be "homework", but I have no idea if that was the case or not.

Dick Mineo
15th October 2007, 05:32
I am interested in which styles/schools teach bunkai with their kata. I would love to hear comments on the following questions:

- Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?
- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?
- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?

I look forward to your replies.

Friends - I am comming in a bit late on this topic. Have read most of the replys but it is getting late my eyes are getting blurry and I would like to add my two cents. Hope I am not repeating someone else's replu that I missed.

Goju karate uses kata and bunkai to help ones body respond immediately to several types of attacks without taking time to think about it.

Mario Higaonna demonstrates many ways that a bunkai can be used. Naturally the attack will not be exactly as prescribed in the kata nor is the person the same size or strength. So bunkai can be altered but not beyond recognition. There will be another move to handle things beyond the reach or use of one move.

If you are in a class and the instructor does not allow for variation. Do as that instructor requires. Your body will still learn to respond as needed when needed.

If you think real fighting will look much at all like the kata or bunkai you might be supprised at what the best kata man really does when sparring full on. The technique from the bunkai will be only a small part of the actual fight but when the opportunity comes the training does help.

Dick Mineo

trevorg
18th October 2007, 14:09
What is important to me is that the prescibed moves of kata and bunkai should never be altered once they have been passed to the student by their sensei.

However, leaving aside the secret moves, it is a matter of fact that no kata or bunkai will ever be exactly the same as performed by different people because of their individual physiology and mind set at the time of performance. This alone will always slightly moderate each move.

And taking Dick's point in relation to a live fight, I agree the bunkai will alter depending on the circumstances and of course at that point it becomes just another tool in the toolbox. Hopefully, sufficient practice has made it become second nature.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
18th October 2007, 18:59
What is important to me is that the prescibed moves of kata and bunkai should never be altered once they have been passed to the student by their sensei.


What do you mean by altered though?

Just like there are alot of variations on a hip throw or a foot sweep, there are alot of variations on kata bunkai, they should all start at the same root though I guess.

It's back to that question of "only one proper technique" again. Different systems teach that this is not the case, i.e. multiple interpretations exist, some are just alot better than others.

For most of the applications i've been taught i'm sure I do them slightly differently in some cases than my teachers, just like the solo kata some amount of drift from the original is unavoidable.

Obviously yes the kata itself is never changed, but it certainly seems to change of it's own accord! If you compare our traditional kata to a performance back in the day it is often very different.

trevorg
18th October 2007, 20:39
What do you mean by altered though?

Just like there are alot of variations on a hip throw or a foot sweep, there are alot of variations on kata bunkai, they should all start at the same root though I guess.

It's back to that question of "only one proper technique" again. Different systems teach that this is not the case, i.e. multiple interpretations exist, some are just alot better than others.

For most of the applications i've been taught i'm sure I do them slightly differently in some cases than my teachers, just like the solo kata some amount of drift from the original is unavoidable.

Obviously yes the kata itself is never changed, but it certainly seems to change of it's own accord! If you compare our traditional kata to a performance back in the day it is often very different.


A technique variation is different from an alteration. There are many variations of a punch, for example, as there are with a block. However, I think you are confirming my point that, as you put it, you do them slightly differently because some kind of drift is unavoidable.

The question is; why has the drift occurred ? It coule be due to several things: not getting it in the first place, lack of concentration, different physiology. This indicates that the student is the source of change. Altering the technique as a result must mean the understanding and purpose is also drifting.

On the other hand a student must take into account the physiology of their partner and how that may affect the response, and on that basis I would agree there is likely to be drift, but I would not call it drift; just addressing the circumstances.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
18th October 2007, 21:06
So how do you view the much talked about principle of shu ha ri (sp?) then?
That's what always seems to get brought up when these concepts are talked about.

I don't remember who, but somewhere recently I read a piece addressing the "preserving of karate", and the gist of it was that while we should preserve the tradition, we also must make sure that we do not "put in karate in a jar and set it on a shelf", in other words keep it a living art.

It seems to me there are dangers to being either too rigid or too lax about these things.

trevorg
18th October 2007, 22:13
Well, its not really a principle. Shu ha ri is a many layered thing but I suppose the best way for us westerners to consider it as a parallel is as a continuous learning curve. The practice of ma is such a continuous learning curve and in professional life it would be called CPD or continuing professional development.

I cant see how shu ha ri relates to the subject in hand because it is a transitional process of learning as opposed to change for change's sake. Ri can only be obtained after a lifetime's study of The Way, which 'way' it might be. Its when it all becomes second nature and harmonious, which is a state that some of us find only rarely occurring in our ma practice, that one has achieved this nirvana state.

Over to you.

Osu
Trevor

Trevor Johnson
18th October 2007, 22:42
Well, its not really a principle. Shu ha ri is a many layered thing but I suppose the best way for us westerners to consider it as a parallel is as a continuous learning curve. The practice of ma is such a continuous learning curve and in professional life it would be called CPD or continuing professional development.

I cant see how shu ha ri relates to the subject in hand because it is a transitional process of learning as opposed to change for change's sake. Ri can only be obtained after a lifetime's study of The Way, which 'way' it might be. Its when it all becomes second nature and harmonious, which is a state that some of us find only rarely occurring in our ma practice, that one has achieved this nirvana state.

Over to you.

Osu
Trevor

What about someone who, when they achieve 'ri,' change the kata? Okinawan history contains a bunch of those, Itosu among them.

ZachZinn
18th October 2007, 23:15
Well, its not really a principle. Shu ha ri is a many layered thing but I suppose the best way for us westerners to consider it as a parallel is as a continuous learning curve. The practice of ma is such a continuous learning curve and in professional life it would be called CPD or continuing professional development.

I cant see how shu ha ri relates to the subject in hand because it is a transitional process of learning as opposed to change for change's sake.

Well to set the record straight, I'm defnitely not in favor of change just for changes sake.

I'm merely trying to reconcile the 2 camps I see in terms of bunkai, one that says one bunkai per technique, and the other that says there are multiple variations.

Again i'd like to point out that the 'multiple techniques' camp is populated partially by fairly traditional people, at least in the world of Goju-Ryu, as far as I other styles I don't know how they deal with bunkai really.

My Shorin days (about 10 years past) had little or no bunkai training, but that was a function of the instructor, not the style.

I suppose the Shu Ha Ri thing doesn't apply, I may need to read up on the concept.

Honestly I feel if kata were meant to be "only this technique" in an official capacity then we would not have the solo kata at all, but rather a syllabus similar to Jujutsu with set 2 man kata that do not deviate unless you're playing around with it.

Anyway, my own bias is obviously the multiple interpretation school of thought, mainly because it's what i've been taught in Goju.

Again, the kata are always the same, but as an example I've learned opening and closing variations for a lot of techniques. Doesn't change the movement most of the time it seems, just a different usage.

trevorg
19th October 2007, 00:02
What about someone who, when they achieve 'ri,' change the kata? Okinawan history contains a bunch of those, Itosu among them.

That's a whole new realm and way way advanced of what we are talking about, but I accept the point of course.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
19th October 2007, 00:04
Well to set the record straight, I'm defnitely not in favor of change just for changes sake.

I'm merely trying to reconcile the 2 camps I see in terms of bunkai, one that says one bunkai per technique, and the other that says there are multiple variations.

Again i'd like to point out that the 'multiple techniques' camp is populated partially by fairly traditional people, at least in the world of Goju-Ryu, as far as I other styles I don't know how they deal with bunkai really.

My Shorin days (about 10 years past) had little or no bunkai training, but that was a function of the instructor, not the style.

I suppose the Shu Ha Ri thing doesn't apply, I may need to read up on the concept.

Honestly I feel if kata were meant to be "only this technique" in an official capacity then we would not have the solo kata at all, but rather a syllabus similar to Jujutsu with set 2 man kata that do not deviate unless you're playing around with it.

Anyway, my own bias is obviously the multiple interpretation school of thought, mainly because it's what i've been taught in Goju.

Again, the kata are always the same, but as an example I've learned opening and closing variations for a lot of techniques. Doesn't change the movement most of the time it seems, just a different usage.

In the final analysis, its what works for you, but taking it right back to the early point of the discussion I just personally feel that things shouldnt be changed. Like Trevor said just now, when a state of ri is reached (lucky people) I suppose it must change although in my lowly state I cannot imagine it.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
19th October 2007, 00:52
In the final analysis, its what works for you, but taking it right back to the early point of the discussion I just personally feel that things shouldnt be changed. Like Trevor said just now, when a state of ri is reached (lucky people) I suppose it must change although in my lowly state I cannot imagine it.

Osu
Trevor


I'm still not sure you understand what i'm saying...so i'll try to give an example:

here is a very nice performance of Gekisai ichi from youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsQHF6uhMA

I have seen and played with at least 5 different bunkai variations on the first move in this kata, they all rely on the same prcinciples, but have some variation from the "official technique" of turning to the left and performing jodan-uke, in fact I would argue that if you take this move literally, as in sim-ply turning and blocking, you are just doing the most basic static version of the technique.

The motion is always much the same, but how it gets used is very different from the standard jodan uke usage, this is what i'm talking about. No one changed anything, there are simply multiple uses of the motion. If you want an example I believe Chinen sensei's old videos (early 90s maybe) show multiple variations of this technique, all of them seem plausible to me.

Trevor Johnson
19th October 2007, 06:42
In the final analysis, its what works for you, but taking it right back to the early point of the discussion I just personally feel that things shouldnt be changed. Like Trevor said just now, when a state of ri is reached (lucky people) I suppose it must change although in my lowly state I cannot imagine it.

Osu
Trevor
Of course, the question is, how do you know? Suppose one of Higaonna's senior students decides to change the kata, for reasons of technique. Is he demonstrating 'ri,' or being a non-traditional, arrogant, so-and-so? You know there are people who will say the latter no matter what the case is. Who knows, people may have mocked Itosu, Kyan, and all the ones we think of as the "Old Masters," because they changed things around.

So, do we say that, as long as the changes were made around the turn of the century, they're legit, and any more recent change is non-traditional?

trevorg
19th October 2007, 15:07
Of course, the question is, how do you know? Suppose one of Higaonna's senior students decides to change the kata, for reasons of technique. Is he demonstrating 'ri,' or being a non-traditional, arrogant, so-and-so? You know there are people who will say the latter no matter what the case is. Who knows, people may have mocked Itosu, Kyan, and all the ones we think of as the "Old Masters," because they changed things around.

So, do we say that, as long as the changes were made around the turn of the century, they're legit, and any more recent change is non-traditional?

I dont think the discussion has ranged around whether an old master has changed anything. Unless I'm mistaken what its about is whether its right or not to change things during the course of learning. By that I have always thought this refers to the general hoi polloi to which I most certainly belong. I stand corrected.

I find the concept of a student achieving ri rather difficult, I'm afraid. If a student changes his sensei's instructions then he is not a good student IMO.

I fully accept that when a master reaches the near perfect state he may very well makes changes and indeed I would argue that he probably has the right.

I see it in the same way that anyone who has achieved a high level of mastery of their specialist subject after a lifetime's study may well look back on their early years and say "you know, I thought it was right at the time but now I can say I've learnt so much more, in fact I've learnt nearly everything there is to know, that I might bring a new dimension to it".

On this point, I just cannot imagine a current grand master in his student days doing anything other than what his sensei told/showed him.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
19th October 2007, 15:16
I'm still not sure you understand what i'm saying...so i'll try to give an example:

here is a very nice performance of Gekisai ichi from youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsQHF6uhMA

I have seen and played with at least 5 different bunkai variations on the first move in this kata, they all rely on the same prcinciples, but have some variation from the "official technique" of turning to the left and performing jodan-uke, in fact I would argue that if you take this move literally, as in sim-ply turning and blocking, you are just doing the most basic static version of the technique.

The motion is always much the same, but how it gets used is very different from the standard jodan uke usage, this is what i'm talking about. No one changed anything, there are simply multiple uses of the motion. If you want an example I believe Chinen sensei's old videos (early 90s maybe) show multiple variations of this technique, all of them seem plausible to me.

I see what you're saying, Zach, but the principle we are discussing is whether bunkai should be changed, or not. If it is changed, it cannot be passed on in its pure form. Whether you have seen variations or alterations or do them is, in my very humble opinion, irrelevant. I've seen changes and alterations, too. I do not think what I saw was bad, ineffective or inappropriate. All I know is that when something is bastardized for whatever reason then drift is bound to occur and the original diluted and possibly lost, in which case part of the heritage has gone adrift as well.

I agree with Trevor that if a master at his peak decides for his own reasons to change a technique, then thats his choice backed up by a lifetime's experience. When that happens we have to put aside that which we have learned and learn the new way.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
19th October 2007, 22:36
I see what you're saying, Zach, but the principle we are discussing is whether bunkai should be changed, or not. If it is changed, it cannot be passed on in its pure form. Whether you have seen variations or alterations or do them is, in my very humble opinion, irrelevant. I've seen changes and alterations, too. I do not think what I saw was bad, ineffective or inappropriate. All I know is that when something is bastardized for whatever reason then drift is bound to occur and the original diluted and possibly lost, in which case part of the heritage has gone adrift as well.

I agree with Trevor that if a master at his peak decides for his own reasons to change a technique, then thats his choice backed up by a lifetime's experience. When that happens we have to put aside that which we have learned and learn the new way.

Osu
Trevor

Again you seem to be ignoring the point that this is the approach taken by some very well respected traditional people. Are you seriously saying someone is bastardizing bunkai by having multiple variations for one technique?

What exactly do you think is the original bunkai? Let's take gekisai as an exmaple, what is the original bunkai of the technique I mentioned?

Seriously the only way i see the discussion progressing is if we can define what is a pure bunkai, so please explain what exactly a pure bunkai is.

So far no one has sufficiently defined this 'pure' methodology, the closest was John Oberle a few pages back, and I really thought what he said about it always being the same technique, but the how being different had merit.

Other than that honestly (meaning no disrespect Trevor i've really enjoyed this conversation with you) I get the feeling that you simply think it's bad to ask questions or actively analyze kata.

While some traditionalists may feel this way there are also alot who don't seem to agree with you.

trevorg
20th October 2007, 00:26
Zach,I can only speak from my own experience. What was passed to me was passed to my sensei. Whether that was 'pure' in the sense that it had remained unaltered through the generations and had remained in its originally taught form I do not know. But I have to believe it was. I would not even consider changing what I have been taught as if I did it would not be the same any more.

It doesnt matter that others more or less senior than I have changed or altered kata or bunkai, that is their choice. As I have always stated, for me personally I cannot see the merit in changing what I have been taught -that is unless I achieve the rare state of ri after a lifetimes practice and then feel that I am able to put my own knowledge and experience into effect. I would feel that I am disrespecting my sensei and ignoring the wealth of knowledge he has passed on to me.

I,too, have really enjoyed this discussion and it would have been great to get the views of some very senior masters so that we could all be a bit enlightened.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
20th October 2007, 16:04
Just for clarification, Zach, and so you know where I am coming from. The 'sensei' to whom I refer falls into two categories;the single and the plural. My first sensei, the late Bill Wright, is the person who ingrained in me a certain way of doing things, and I have not changed that over 35 years.
However, I have had the good fortune to train with several masters in different systems and again when I have been shown a technique that I might wish to use (in isolation to my original learning) I leave that technique entirely in its original form.

So, in basic training I revert to what I was originally taught. When it comes to kumite, I throw it all in and use whatever technique is right for the moment.

Osu
Trevor

Shorin Ryuu
22nd October 2007, 05:26
So far no one has sufficiently defined this 'pure' methodology, the closest was John Oberle a few pages back, and I really thought what he said about it always being the same technique, but the how being different had merit.


To clarify, what I meant was that Chibana Sensei taught 3 different levels of meaning for each movement. These meanings were taken from Itosu, who either invented the kata or had it transmitted to him via Matsumura, preserving the meaning. The actual movement and how each is being done is the same for every single meaning. Your mental understanding of what you are doing changes based upon what meaning you are assigning at that moment, but again, the how is the same. If your movement cannot accommodate every meaning you have assigned, not all of your meanings are correct.

For example, in the opening of Patsai Sho or Dai, the basic meaning is that there is a block with the right arm and the left hand is open and touching the right. The advanced meaning is that it is a block with the right arm and a finger thrust with the right. However, the execution is done exactly the same. A novice will do it differently than an experienced person, but that is only because they do not understand the move. It should be the same regardless of what meaning you assign.

As another example, in the movement in Pinan/Heian Godan, towards the end, there is a movement where you end up kneeling down with your arms at doing a technique to the left side of your body. That is a connection to the moves prior. It can either be a block to the side with the left arm and hitting the leg with the right, or it can be the completion of a throw. Regardless of what meaning you assign to it, it is done exactly the same both ways.

I have the luxury of having the original meanings given to me, thus my focus is on how the execution takes place to make them effective. Regardless, the "how" for each meaning is the same. This is what is meant by depth of meaning for your movements. If you are working towards an actual methodology rather than a patchwork of assembled meanings, this is how it should be, in my opinion.

trevorg
22nd October 2007, 09:20
Extremely well put, if I might say so.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
22nd October 2007, 17:14
To clarify, what I meant was that Chibana Sensei taught 3 different levels of meaning for each movement. These meanings were taken from Itosu, who either invented the kata or had it transmitted to him via Matsumura, preserving the meaning. The actual movement and how each is being done is the same for every single meaning. Your mental understanding of what you are doing changes based upon what meaning you are assigning at that moment, but again, the how is the same. If your movement cannot accommodate every meaning you have assigned, not all of your meanings are correct.....


Thanks for elaborating, that was about what I took you to mean the first time, so sorry if I misquoted ya.

trevorg
22nd October 2007, 18:21
I thought I would go back to the genesis of this thread. These are two of the points first posted by Rick Michaels:

1) How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
2) Are students/instructors allowed to develop alternate bunkai?

I know this extremely interesting discussion has ranged far and wide, but my original answer was 'none' in either event and in particular to point 2 I still firmly believe that students/instructors should not be allowed to alternate bunkai (because it will inevitably alter itself given circumstances). I do agree a master may decide to vary the kata or bunkai according to his level of experience, but students and instructors is a firm 'no' in my book.

I do not think it is a question of reconciling two camps, or points of view vis-a-vis whether bunkai/kata should be altered or not. I believe the main question that should be addressed which relates to the original post is "at what level should bunkai or kata be altered".


osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
22nd October 2007, 20:26
I thought I would go back to the genesis of this thread. These are two of the points first posted by Rick Michaels:

1) How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
2) Are students/instructors allowed to develop alternate bunkai?

I know this extremely interesting discussion has ranged far and wide, but my original answer was 'none' in either event and in particular to point 2 I still firmly believe that students/instructors should not be allowed to alternate bunkai (because it will inevitably alter itself given circumstances). I do agree a master may decide to vary the kata or bunkai according to his level of experience, but students and instructors is a firm 'no' in my book.

I do not think it is a question of reconciling two camps, or points of view vis-a-vis whether bunkai/kata should be altered or not. I believe the main question that should be addressed which relates to the original post is "at what level should bunkai or kata be altered".


osu
Trevor

On the surface I agree, but what is "altering bunkai"? Taking saifa as an example, I have been taught a number of variations on the first technique, they address different forms of attack, but are in essence the same technique, which one is the original? I personally doubt that anyone knows.

I have also seen interpretations of this technique that fall short of the mark and make less sense than those i have been in taught, yet the were referred to as the bunkai

To me it is more important that you have a good method for intuitively understanding kata, and at least as I have been taught that is basically the rules of Kasai as mentioned in the Toguchi book, and more recently in Kane and Wilder's The Way Of Kata.

As far as applications go I only teach the ones I have been shown, and only then the ones that I can perform on another well enough to be worth sharing. However, I am at the early stages of my martial arts career relatively speaking so the people I am teaching are at the level where what little I can impart in the way of bunkai is suitable for them, that is to say they are beginners.

Addressing the original question though, i am not sure I can teach an application in an indentical manner as my teachers without transcribing their words. It is best I agree to not overburden people with too many explanations as far as techniques, but it is undeniable that when performed on another human being there is variation.

As far as the actual movement of the kata it is always is the same, and of course no one ever changes that minus individual deviations due to body type, etc. Or when we get corrected heheh;)

trevorg
22nd October 2007, 22:32
I probably didn't make myself clear when I said "at what level". I meant the level of expertise that a master would have attained - ri.

When you say, Zach, "As far as applications go I only teach the ones I have been shown", do you change those applications at all or stick to what you have been shown and pass that on ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
22nd October 2007, 23:28
I probably didn't make myself clear when I said "at what level". I meant the level of expertise that a master would have attained - ri.

When you say, Zach, "As far as applications go I only teach the ones I have been shown", do you change those applications at all or stick to what you have been shown and pass that on ?

Osu
Trevor

Well, I stick with what I have been shown, but I have also been shown variations. As another example I've been shown a number of different variations for the sweep-stomp-shuto combo in gekisai, and I would show the variations if I think people would benefit from the information. It is still the same technique but it can happen very differently under differing circumstances.

I'm not sure how you could "change" an application other than varying the circumstances and attack.

A seiken tsuki can't become a spinning back kick.

My feeling is simply that a technique as taught by one person can be different enough when taught by another that it could be called a variation, even if done unintentionally, as long as the method and the principles behind what you are doing are effective I don't see a problem with that.

My view is that there is maybe a "root technique" and there are variations on that theme, this is of course only from my own experience (specifically my Goju Ryu training) with the 2 people who have taught me most of what I know about Goju.

If you look back though, my main gripe is the one-to -one bunkai to kata thing, as I have specifically been shown different variations, and I believe there is more than one correct application of most techniques. it's the Application part that seems different to me though, not the technique itself.

I would not personally have someone "make up" a bunkai because it seems to me that if you're using the right methods everyone seems to come up with similar (though not exact) results. Also I am way too green to even think about something like that, it is enough for me right now to come up with a class plan that gives people the fundamentals they need to work on.

This is all regarding Goju kata BTW, a long time ago when I did Shorin Ryu there was not alot of bunkai training period during class.

Also I think a big part of any bunkai conversation has to include how you train it in the dojo, we have more rigid 2 man tandem drills we refer to as "bunkai" which never change, then we have fuku-shiki kumite (I think this is the term) drills for working kata applications, the second category are much more dynamic and by their nature once you do them with some intensity there is variation in movement, timing, etc.

Obviously we all teach what we have been taught, and I am the last person who would try to deviate from that.

However, both my teachers also emphasized having a critical yet open mind about these things, and I try to follow that mindset. I don't think I would do either of them any justice if I simply aped what they gave me without having some "ownership" myself, which is why I said I try only to teach application I can comfortably perform.

There is plenty they can do and have shown me that I do not feel I have basic comptency in yet, and those are on the shelf for the time being.

trevorg
23rd October 2007, 16:23
Zach, I can't tell you how pleased I am :) to read that you pass on that which you were taught, in which case the bottom line is that you don't change the application ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
23rd October 2007, 22:34
Zach, I can't tell you how pleased I am :) to read that you pass on that which you were taught, in which case the bottom line is that you don't change the application ?

Osu
Trevor


Well no, i'm not good enough to change any of them, and I don't see anything that needs changing. My only point is that there are always a number of variations for each technique, and I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who is good enough teaching "if" and "or" variations on a given technique.

My main point is that there is more than one correct interpretation for a technique, and I think that is true because it's how I was taught, and indeed I have been shown multiple variations of given techniques.

Moreover (and this is the part what will sound like blasphemy to you i'm sure;)) whether a technique is the "original" doesn't matter. In fact in an oral tradition I would argue it is really impossible to know what is the original technique. What matters to my mind is that there is a logical system for understanding what kata has to say, if the minutae are different I don't really care.

Think about how many versions of something you've learned, which one do you stick with?

So far I stick with the one that is the most comfortable fit for me, but the others exist and once a student is ready to see more possibilities I don't see any reason to withold the information.

Again if kata were meant to have a strict one to one relationship to waza with no 'layers' then I truly believe we would only have 2 man kata in the mold of JuJutsu etc.

So the short answer is NO I don't add or subtract anything intentionally from what I was taught.

People can mess around with kata however they want though, as long as they're not trying to add "taikyoko spinning back kick" to the official Goju syllabus then there's absolutely nothing wrong with some creativity, you just have to keep it in context.

ZachZinn
24th October 2007, 00:40
To further explain the last part of my post, I think it's good to have an inquistive and critical view about kata bunkai, as long as it doesn't become the stuff of fantasy, and stays firmly grounded in the right principles, it seems fine to me.

trevorg
24th October 2007, 09:27
To further explain the last part of my post, I think it's good to have an inquistive and critical view about kata bunkai, as long as it doesn't become the stuff of fantasy, and stays firmly grounded in the right principles, it seems fine to me.

I couldn't agree more. This has been a most enjoyable thread :karatekid.

osu
Trevor

Dick Mineo
26th October 2007, 03:57
As I read this thread, I find there is very little one could add.
It does seem that most of what is being said is actually in agreeing with eachohter. The details tend to get a bit overboard but maybe this is the problem with words in general.

My summing up of it all is - Most definately - Teach kata and their bunkai exactly as you were taught (hopefully by someone that did not do any altering themselves).
Maybe - because I was taught - First the kata moves then the bunkai demonstrations with only one application, then later the applications were "tweeked" to fit the opponents, size, strength, angle of attack, suprise element or whatever happens to cause the bunkai to be changed a bit. Then later - changed to different intent than originally taught.

Take Shisochin for example. The original double middle block with a forearm smash to the back side of the opponents elbow area. In the kata and original bunkai - these are blocks and forearm strike.
GoJu in its advanced training incorperates methods that are emphasized in other compeltely different martial arts styles. That is - suddenly - instead of Shisochin being only a block and smash.....it becomes a block with grabbing the wrist of the opponents attacking arm, then instead of a smash it "shifts" toward (Aikido) and comes up under the opponents elbow area with an upward or downward force (incorperating the whole body into the motion) in order to bend the elbow and turn the movement into a throw or take down. Further more - instead of just useing the this throw technique it can incorperate the Goju grip on a nerve in the area of the opponents elbow and wrist. All of this is still Shisochin.

So - The original teaching shows the move and the intent for one particular attack or counter attack. All or atleast most kata moves have more than one application.
However the original teaching must never be changed. It actually has everything in it for further "tweeking".

I better stop here. Trying to explain my feelings might be upsetting some and that is not my intent. I still think most are in agreeance here and I am trying to fortify that.

Remember this - For every thesis there is an antithesis.

EddieK
2nd November 2007, 00:12
"...The techniques within the kata have been developed by our predecessors and are purposefully difficult to distinguish from one another. For example, there are many cases where a strike is more specifically an elbow strike, or what appears to be a defensive move is actually an attack. The interpretation of the Bunkai is dependent on each practitioner's ability..."

Eiichi Miyazato Sensei

Sorry, but there are infinite interpretations of Bunkai. The Kata may be considered the "text books" of the Martial Arts, but they are written in shorthand. Your personal interpretations will change over the years as your understanding grows. The more understanding that you have, the more "shorthand" you will be able to interpret. At least this has been true in my case.

Nyuck3X
3rd November 2007, 16:53
Nice quote Mr. Koschmider,

I have always thought of kata as being similar to the Bible or
U.S. Constitution. You take what you are able to process at the time.
Hopefully your understanding of it gets deeper. You have conservatives
and liberals. The only real truth is how well it works under fire.

Peace.

EddieK
4th November 2007, 00:44
Very well put (my point exactly)! - and it's just Ed:)

trevorg
4th November 2007, 14:54
"...The techniques within the kata have been developed by our predecessors and are purposefully difficult to distinguish from one another. For example, there are many cases where a strike is more specifically an elbow strike, or what appears to be a defensive move is actually an attack. The interpretation of the Bunkai is dependent on each practitioner's ability..."

Eiichi Miyazato Sensei

Sorry, but there are infinite interpretations of Bunkai. The Kata may be considered the "text books" of the Martial Arts, but they are written in shorthand. Your personal interpretations will change over the years as your understanding grows. The more understanding that you have, the more "shorthand" you will be able to interpret. At least this has been true in my case.

That's an interesting point. However, if a student is a first line beginner he will do what he is told as he will not have even the basic knowledge to make his own interpretation. If it is meant that the student's physical ability will result in a slightly different application then I can understand it.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
4th November 2007, 17:10
That's an interesting point. However, if a student is a first line beginner he will do what he is told as he will not have even the basic knowledge to make his own interpretation. If it is meant that the student's physical ability will result in a slightly different application then I can understand it.

Osu
Trevor


Being that it's being said by Miyazato sensei, i'm guessing that is exactly what he meant.

And I agree most beginners don't need an understanding of bunkai because they are still getting down fundamental movement skills and such, right?

I think what EddieK said about kata being written in shorthand is very appropriate.

EddieK
5th November 2007, 01:33
That's an interesting point. However, if a student is a first line beginner he will do what he is told as he will not have even the basic knowledge to make his own interpretation. If it is meant that the student's physical ability will result in a slightly different application then I can understand it.

Osu
Trevor

Hey Trevor! - I think that it is the job of the Sensei to lead the students down the path of understanding so that one day, when the student's ability and maturity are at the correct point, they will be able to make/use their own interpretations. The interpretations taught at all stages are "level" appropriate and serve as means to guide the student into independant thinking (thinking out of the box) - Just as Kindergarteners learn the alphabet, High School students learn to use that same alphabet to create the higher concepts of words, paragraphs, etc... Then in College, these same basic words and paragraghs are used as building blocks to create a doctorate theses. Now, as for teaching beginners the higher concepts from day one, well, it is exactly like giving a 5 year old an assignment from a college level course text book - the results may be colorful, but they will be in crayon!

Shorin Ryuu
5th November 2007, 02:52
When it comes down to it, what is the value added by allowing students to come up with their own meaning? A student feeling a technique they came up with is more "suited" to them... where does that come from? Shouldn't the bottom line be effectiveness rather than personal preference? A lot of people state that whatever comes "most comfortable" should be the meaning of a technique, but isn't that a function of training and understanding rather than just what "intuitively" happens? Does this sort of thinking come from being taught an ineffective meaning in the first place that causes students to want something else (in most cases, probably the "how" of execution made the meaning ineffective rather than the simple "what" of execution... i.e. the mechanics of the block make it weak rather than a block being a weak technique)?

Bottom Line: Everyone likes the idea of personal modification or flavor in their karate when it comes to the meaning of movements... is this emotional attachment to the idea necessary when it comes to the reality of fighting?

I just wanted to throw this out here for discussion, since everyone started to sound like they were getting along.

EddieK
5th November 2007, 05:09
Here is one more attempt at explaining what I am trying to say -

"...If you practice the kata thoroughly you will come to understand the bunkai of the kata naturally and completely. However, this will take many years of training, without which you will not gain a true understanding of the kata, and will not be able to apply kata techniques in real combat. None of the movements is restricted to only one application - in a real fight the variations of each application is unlimited. Anyone who says differently simply does not understand what he or she is talking about..."
- Morio Higaonna Sensei

ZachZinn
5th November 2007, 05:16
When it comes down to it, what is the value added by allowing students to come up with their own meaning? A student feeling a technique they came up with is more "suited" to them... where does that come from? Shouldn't the bottom line be effectiveness rather than personal preference? A lot of people state that whatever comes "most comfortable" should be the meaning of a technique, but isn't that a function of training and understanding rather than just what "intuitively" happens? Does this sort of thinking come from being taught an ineffective meaning in the first place that causes students to want something else (in most cases, probably the "how" of execution made the meaning ineffective rather than the simple "what" of execution... i.e. the mechanics of the block make it weak rather than a block being a weak technique)?

Bottom Line: Everyone likes the idea of personal modification or flavor in their karate when it comes to the meaning of movements... is this emotional attachment to the idea necessary when it comes to the reality of fighting?

I just wanted to throw this out here for discussion, since everyone started to sound like they were getting along.


You make a good point here, but I don't think anyone is advocating slack technique when discussing individual variations of techniques, in the end I suppose everyone knows the same techniques, but they arrive at them in different ways sometimes.

The personal flavor bit is unavoidable to a degree, don't you have certain things you're better at than others? I know I do.

But yes, good useful technique should probably the basis to start from.

If anything I think the 'levels' of bunkai understanding according to the practitioner was the part everyone is definitively agreeing on.

I don't advocate the idea of anyone over personalizing kata or waza, but I do think it's important for students to learn from personal experience what they are and are not capable of and comfortable with to get any real depth of understanding.

I think this simply because it has been my own experience as a student, and it is the model used by my teachers in general.

All that being said obviously we can't be relativist about technique, some stuff works better than other stuff, but there is an acceptable range of interpretation, right?

trevorg
5th November 2007, 10:10
Hey Trevor! - I think that it is the job of the Sensei to lead the students down the path of understanding so that one day, when the student's ability and maturity are at the correct point, they will be able to make/use their own interpretations. The interpretations taught at all stages are "level" appropriate and serve as means to guide the student into independant thinking (thinking out of the box) - Just as Kindergarteners learn the alphabet, High School students learn to use that same alphabet to create the higher concepts of words, paragraphs, etc... Then in College, these same basic words and paragraghs are used as building blocks to create a doctorate theses. Now, as for teaching beginners the higher concepts from day one, well, it is exactly like giving a 5 year old an assignment from a college level course text book - the results may be colorful, but they will be in crayon!

I couldn't agree more. It's what I have been labouring to say. There must come a point (where we discussed ri earlier) whereby one surpasses the obvious, or dealing with circumstance and environment. It just takes an awful long time and not everyone gets it anyway.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
5th November 2007, 11:03
When it comes down to it, what is the value added by allowing students to come up with their own meaning? A student feeling a technique they came up with is more "suited" to them... where does that come from? Shouldn't the bottom line be effectiveness rather than personal preference? A lot of people state that whatever comes "most comfortable" should be the meaning of a technique, but isn't that a function of training and understanding rather than just what "intuitively" happens? Does this sort of thinking come from being taught an ineffective meaning in the first place that causes students to want something else (in most cases, probably the "how" of execution made the meaning ineffective rather than the simple "what" of execution... i.e. the mechanics of the block make it weak rather than a block being a weak technique)?

Bottom Line: Everyone likes the idea of personal modification or flavor in their karate when it comes to the meaning of movements... is this emotional attachment to the idea necessary when it comes to the reality of fighting?

I just wanted to throw this out here for discussion, since everyone started to sound like they were getting along.

Oh, there's always one troublemaker, just when it was getting real cozy
and there was the glimmer of mutual and beneficial understanding :laugh:

Emotional attachment as opposed to blind pursuit of what is taught ? I think that is a good point and probably a very western characteristic. We just think too much, dont we ? I am afraid I am from the old school of "do what I say and do what I do" as opposed to the free thinking style of "how can I improve this?", so all I can do is stand firm.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
5th November 2007, 14:04
You make a good point here, but I don't think anyone is advocating slack technique when discussing individual variations of techniques, in the end I suppose everyone knows the same techniques, but they arrive at them in different ways sometimes.

The personal flavor bit is unavoidable to a degree, don't you have certain things you're better at than others? I know I do.

But yes, good useful technique should probably the basis to start from.

If anything I think the 'levels' of bunkai understanding according to the practitioner was the part everyone is definitively agreeing on.

I don't advocate the idea of anyone over personalizing kata or waza, but I do think it's important for students to learn from personal experience what they are and are not capable of and comfortable with to get any real depth of understanding.

I think this simply because it has been my own experience as a student, and it is the model used by my teachers in general.

All that being said obviously we can't be relativist about technique, some stuff works better than other stuff, but there is an acceptable range of interpretation, right?

But why, Zach, should they arrive at it in different ways in the first place?
....and an acceptable range of interpretation by whom? The student ? Shouldn't it be the sensei who decides any change ?

Suppose this; a student interprets a technique the way his sensei has taught him (because the student considers it the right thing to do as an acceptable change). Is it your belief, therefore, the sensei would in turn accept (a) the change because it reflects the student's initiative (b) that it is a natural progression, or ought the student be brought back in line ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
5th November 2007, 18:01
But why, Zach, should they arrive at it in different ways in the first place?
....and an acceptable range of interpretation by whom? The student ? Shouldn't it be the sensei who decides any change ?


Suppose this; a student interprets a technique the way his sensei has taught him (because the student considers it the right thing to do as an acceptable change). Is it your belief, therefore, the sensei would in turn accept (a) the change because it reflects the student's initiative (b) that it is a natural progression, or ought the student be brought back in line ?

Osu
Trevor

That's not really what I was talking about in terms of deviation of technique, I was more talking about range of interpretation in bunkai in general.

If we took a kata we all knew and said "hey what is this technique doing" my guess is we would all have slightly different answers, though they very well might have a common thread. Why this is i'm not quite certain, but I feel it's a pretty likely outcome.

As to your example, yeah I don't really think that would be appropriate, and speaking for myself it isn't what i'm advocating.

ZachZinn
5th November 2007, 19:39
Ok here's what I was getting at and probably didn't phrase right the first time:

I think that personal validation of tecniques is important at some point, probably not as a true beginner, but as progression happens I feel there should be something more than "this is good because sensei says so".

I realize this is the traditional modeling relationship used in Karate, I simply feel that such a model is only part of the picture of learning Karate.

trevorg
5th November 2007, 22:24
Ok here's what I was getting at and probably didn't phrase right the first time:

I think that personal validation of tecniques is important at some point, probably not as a true beginner, but as progression happens I feel there should be something more than "this is good because sensei says so".

I realize this is the traditional modeling relationship used in Karate, I simply feel that such a model is only part of the picture of learning Karate.

So,if you are personally validating something, sort of making it your own technique, a kind of signature technique as it were, how can you possibly pass the original on as it was passed to you ?

I don't think its a question of "this is good because sensei says so" because one assumes that it was passed to him, that is unless he has stated that what he is showing isnt what he was taught. And if it wasnt, and then you change it for reasons of personal choice,then it is diluted even further.

And where does it stop ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
5th November 2007, 22:50
So,if you are personally validating something, sort of making it your own technique, a kind of signature technique as it were, how can you possibly pass the original on as it was passed to you ?

I don't think its a question of "this is good because sensei says so" because one assumes that it was passed to him, that is unless he has stated that what he is showing isnt what he was taught. And if it wasnt, and then you change it for reasons of personal choice,then it is diluted even further.

And where does it stop ?

Osu
Trevor

Aargh, that is not what I meant. There's no "signature tehcniques"...we aren't pro wrestlers.

What I mean is that by a certain level you have to have a depth of understanding of the technique for yourself, sensei just opens the door as they say. Doesn't mean you're going to or should actively modify anything, just means you now have enough direct experience of it to show it to someone else, rather than just aping it.

We already covered the "changing techniques" thing, and as I said I don't actively change anything.

Martial arts are living arts, this idea of some type of static preservation strikes me as semantic more than anything else.

You do your best to pass on what you were taught, but sorry after a few generations it has changed whether you like it or not. All you need to do to see this is look up some of the old videos of pretty much any traditional karate on youtube.

I don't know of any traditional (meaning non-ecclectic modern styles) karateka who think it's good to actively add their own flavor to techniques in the way that you're implying so if that's what you think i'm advocating, think again. That sort of thing seems more the area of modern American - based arts like Kajukenbo and Kenpo and such.

I'm just trying to acknowledge that a big part of what a martial art actually is lies with the people that practice it, there are no "techniques" floating out in the ether somewhere detached from their practitioners that we can stick in a jar and preserve for future generations, all there is is us learning and teaching things.

So riddle me this, since all kata (generally speaking) are of Chinese descent, do you think we as karateka have the original techniques of these kata?

Seems very doubtful to me.


The best bunkai training I have gotten is from my teachers who I believe have an intuitive understanding such as that alluded to in the Morio Hiagoanna quote earlier, rote memorization and preservation of an "original bunkai" is not by any stretch the same thing IMO.

Bottom line for me is I am not convinced it is possible to preserve the letter of the law in terms of bunkai, so it seems that the best we can do is preserve the spirit of it, and hope we come to the letter through training.

Anyway i'm getting way too long winded now, the quotes posted by EddieK, and some of Dick Mineo's comments get to the heart of what i'm saying.

trevorg
5th November 2007, 23:03
AAAAAArgh, that is not what I meant. There's no "signature tehcniques"...we aren't pro wrestlers.

What I mean is that by a certain level you have to have a depth of understanding of the technique for yourself, sensei just opens the door as they say. Doesn't mean you're going to or should actively modify anything, just means you now have enough direct experience of it to show it to someone else, rather than just aping it.

We already covered the "changing techniques" thing, and as I said I don't actively change anything.

Martial arts are living arts, this idea of some type of static preservation strikes me as semantic more than anything else.

You do your best to pass on what you were taught, but sorry after a few generations it has changed whether you like it or not. All you need to do to see this is look up some of the old videos of pretty much any traditional karate on youtube.

I don't know of any traditional (meaning non-ecclectic modern styles) karateka who think it's good to actively add their own flavor to techniques in the way that you're implying so if that's what you think i'm advocating, think again. That sort of thing seems more the area of modern American - based arts like Kajukenbo and Kenpo and such.

I'm just trying to acknowledge that a big part of what a martial art actually is lies with the people that practice it, there are no "techniques" floating out in the ether somewhere detached from their practitioners that we can stick in a jar and preserve for future generations, all there is is us learning and teaching things.

So riddle me this, since all kata (generally speaking) are of Chinese descent, do you think we as karateka have the original techniques of these kata?

Seems very doubtful to me.


All that pirate jabber is getting to you, isnt it ? Anyway, you have made a good point so I'm not going to play around except to say that not all kata derived from China as some, in Goju for example,were devised specifically by Chojun Miyagi who invented three new kata, Gekisai Dai Ichi, Gekisai Dai Ni, and Tensho,and that being the case means their derivation is known and thus, in my really humble view, shouldnt be changed because they were not changed in the first place. I'm not getting into the changed bit again, just pointing out that there seems to me a possibility that a clear,true line maybe exists in this instance.

There are, of course, people out there far far more knowledgeable than I and it would be great to hear from someone in Goju who could confirm whether this is true,or not.


osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
5th November 2007, 23:17
All that pirate jabber is getting to you, isnt it ? Anyway, you have made a good point so I'm not going to play around except to say that not all kata derived from China as some, in Goju for example,were devised specifically by Chojun Miyagi who invented three new kata, Gekisai Dai Ichi, Gekisai Dai Ni, and Tensho,and that being the case means their derivation is known and thus, in my really humble view, shouldnt be changed because they were not changed in the first place. I'm not getting into the changed bit again, just pointing out that there seems to me a possibility that a clear,true line maybe exists in this instance.

There are, of course, people out there far far more knowledgeable than I and it would be great to hear from someone in Goju who could confirm whether this is true,or not.


osu
Trevor


Tensho is taken from an older kata, Rokkishu I think. I'm not sure whether or not Gekisai kata were invented by miyagi, since Matsubayashi Shorin (and others maybe) use them too.

Whatever the case, I can tell you that I have actually seen as an example the feeding crane version of seisan, it is very different. It's been said that Miyagi altered the katas alot, and I believe there are some kata in the Goju syllabus that were not even taught to Miyagi by Kanryo Hiagonna.

What does this mean? Well I think it strikes to the heart of what we are talking about because obviously Goju kata are undeniably different from the Chinese forms from which they came, and if we follow absolutely the idea of a direct, unchanged transmission then it seems to me it implies that Goju kata, in fact most karate kata are "wrong" somehow.

I'm no scholar but as far as I know the above kata info is generally correct.

Shorin Ryuu
6th November 2007, 02:15
So riddle me this, since all kata (generally speaking) are of Chinese descent, do you think we as karateka have the original techniques of these kata?

Seems very doubtful to me.


Perhaps not, but I know the Okinawan Shorin Ryu of Itosu/Chibana retain their original Itosu/Chibana meanings among some practitioners. Along these lines, Chibana Sensei felt that Okinawan karate was distinct enough from Chinese martial arts in its development. He expressed this through his naming of the style "Shorin Ryu". The "Shorin" refers to the Shaolin temple, but he removed one stroke (turning the kanji into "small" as opposed to "few") to denote the distinctive Okinawan flavor that Shorin Ryu had taken. That being said, it was not merely a cosmetic change or a regrettable drifting away due to the inability of transmission, but it was a very deliberate methodology different than pure Chinese martial arts.

JS3
7th November 2007, 01:38
Perhaps not, but I know the Okinawan Shorin Ryu of Itosu/Chibana retain their original Itosu/Chibana meanings among some practitioners. Along these lines, Chibana Sensei felt that Okinawan karate was distinct enough from Chinese martial arts in its development. He expressed this through his naming of the style "Shorin Ryu". The "Shorin" refers to the Shaolin temple, but he removed one stroke (turning the kanji into "small" as opposed to "few") to denote the distinctive Okinawan flavor that Shorin Ryu had taken. That being said, it was not merely a cosmetic change or a regrettable drifting away due to the inability of transmission, but it was a very deliberate methodology different than pure Chinese martial arts.


Hey John long time.
Just to play devils advocate, why did Itosu not keep the origional meanings of Matsumura?
Did he have personal interpetations that were different from his teachers?
I agree that its better to have techniques and principals that work rather that
stuff we make up because it "feels" good, but if there was never personal interpetation would we not still be practicing the art of Sakugawa or Takehara. More to the point would we not be studying Chinese Gung Fu??

Just curious.

trevorg
7th November 2007, 09:35
I think that when we delve back into the very beginnings of karate in the 1700s when Kushanku demonstrated his form of kempo it would have been a natural evolution for his students to eventually, as they reached an advanced state, modify it to suit the local mind set, physiology and culture.

I also accept that as generations pass and there are new masters on the block, once they have reached this sublime state they may very well have adjusted a kata/bunkai because they have seen a different way.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
7th November 2007, 19:35
Here is one more attempt at explaining what I am trying to say -

"...If you practice the kata thoroughly you will come to understand the bunkai of the kata naturally and completely. However, this will take many years of training, without which you will not gain a true understanding of the kata, and will not be able to apply kata techniques in real combat. None of the movements is restricted to only one application - in a real fight the variations of each application is unlimited. Anyone who says differently simply does not understand what he or she is talking about..."
- Morio Higaonna Sensei

Sorry, Ed, forgot to respond to this one. It is certainly true in my mind that it would take a lifetime of study to come anywhere near a full understanding of the bunkai of the/a kata and I also agree the variations in a real fight are unlimited, simply because the opponent will not necessarily be skilled in the arts, but just a fighter or someone at least who potentially has the skill to do you a lot of harm.

So, in essence the more you practice,the more you learn and hopefully the better able to deal with the unexpected when it arises.

The subtle nuances of bunkai are really fascinating and my main thrust throughout this discussion has been that bunkai shouldnt be changed as continuous study will ultimately lead to the greater understanding as more and more makes itself apparent to the student.

Do you think there ever comes a point when one is on top of the game ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
7th November 2007, 22:11
Here's some more bunkai vids I found interesting.


I think Shorin Ryu seisan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_MAgzffMMU

Shito Ryu seisan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtPl48yPUa0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtTaXxlAV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGhYe6n0Zbw

Kanku Dai (is that the same kata as Kusanku?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkUYBQz9iE

What do you think of these, do you think they are the result of generations of unchanged transmission, are they simply made up by the practitioners, or are they a combination of both?

My vote is they are a combination of both.

trevorg
7th November 2007, 22:54
I dont think it is possible to say from watching vids as one would need to know exactly what was passed down and how it was received, also an admission (or otherwise from the receiver) whether he continued the transmission unaffected or decided to change it for one reason or the other.

osu
Trevor

EddieK
8th November 2007, 00:28
Sorry, Ed, forgot to respond to this one. It is certainly true in my mind that it would take a lifetime of study to come anywhere near a full understanding of the bunkai of the/a kata and I also agree the variations in a real fight are unlimited, simply because the opponent will not necessarily be skilled in the arts, but just a fighter or someone at least who potentially has the skill to do you a lot of harm.

So, in essence the more you practice,the more you learn and hopefully the better able to deal with the unexpected when it arises.

The subtle nuances of bunkai are really fascinating and my main thrust throughout this discussion has been that bunkai shouldnt be changed as continuous study will ultimately lead to the greater understanding as more and more makes itself apparent to the student.

Do you think there ever comes a point when one is on top of the game ?

Osu
Trevor

Hello again Trevor! - Beautifully said - and I WISH (just once) that I was on top of my game! - Oh well, maybe if I live and train for another 100 years or so - I might be close!!! Barring that - I'll just continue to be a student forever - LOL

trevorg
8th November 2007, 11:22
Hi Ed

You and me both ! I always find that when I am free fighting, if I am lucky enough to so with any of my teachers, that I just find myself in a complete state of self preservation because of the ever changing dynamics due to the mastery of the teacher. My concentration level has to soar because these are, to me, unknown heights.

On the other hand with my peer group or juniors I am comfortable because the applications I have learnt allows me to deal with the variation of the attack which is defined by the opponent.

One day, one day............:cry:

osu
Trevor

Shukokai guy
8th November 2007, 13:32
Gentlemen

I have to say you all make persuasive arguements for your side and its nice to see an intelligent discussion without someone resorting to a slanging match and throwing of handbags.

I think there is a single underlying driver here..........human endeavour. It is mankind's need to change things that has put us where we are today (however good or bad that may be). Is that not the reason why bunkai cannot stay in the same state it was when the founder put it all together? I have a question for you all. What car do you drive? Do you enjoy the diversity of the range available? Do you like fast or comfortable, off-road or people carriers?

If we applied the, 'must maintain the way it was without change' attitude your car would have no seats, boot or indeed a cab with windscreens. It would be powered by steam and have a large round boiler right where you put you butt. And forget a steering wheel, that would surely be an enhancement, so you can't have that!

In fact the original 'car' is too much of a deviation from the good old horse and cart, so you'll have to have that instead. No wait a minute, the cart is too much as well, so we'll get rid of that and just keep the horse. Well the horse really was someone's fanciful idea about getting around faster, so we'll sell that. Guess what, we're all walking home

So my question is, who's to say the founder was correct in the first place? Things can be improved. Then again, maybe not always, that's why we have Citroens, uurgh!! Just because the original idea was a good one it doesn't mean there won't be any flaws in it or that someone else won't think they can improve on it.

Cheers

Gil

trevorg
8th November 2007, 13:58
Gentlemen

I have to say you all make persuasive arguements for your side and its nice to see an intelligent discussion without someone resorting to a slanging match and throwing of handbags.

I think there is a single underlying driver here..........human endeavour. It is mankind's need to change things that has put us where we are today (however good or bad that may be). Is that not the reason why bunkai cannot stay in the same state it was when the founder put it all together? I have a question for you all. What car do you drive? Do you enjoy the diversity of the range available? Do you like fast or comfortable, off-road or people carriers?

If we applied the, 'must maintain the way it was without change' attitude your car would have no seats, boot or indeed a cab with windscreens. It would be powered by steam and have a large round boiler right where you put you butt. And forget a steering wheel, that would surely be an enhancement, so you can't have that!

In fact the original 'car' is too much of a deviation from the good old horse and cart, so you'll have to have that instead. No wait a minute, the cart is too much as well, so we'll get rid of that and just keep the horse. Well the horse really was someone's fanciful idea about getting around faster, so we'll sell that. Guess what, we're all walking home

So my question is, who's to say the founder was correct in the first place? Things can be improved. Then again, maybe not always, that's why we have Citroens, uurgh!! Just because the original idea was a good one it doesn't mean there won't be any flaws in it or that someone else won't think they can improve on it.

Cheers

Gil

Welcome to the best debate on e-budo today.

Anyway, I just can't agree with your analogy. What better car can there be than a classic vehicle ? There is heritage and style, also the benefit of being completely wrapped in the comfort of knowing the craftsmanship that went into it.

You are, of course, referring again to the subject of personal choice which is one of the central planks of this discussion. Just because you enjoy something from a personal perspective, or want to put a personal take on it, doesn't mean to say that it is the right thing to do.

It could be argued that the deviation from the horse and cart to a car was a giant leap for mankind, a major and one-off evolutionary step in much the same way as the first kata/bunkai were created.

It doesnt mean to say things can't be improved, but the question in my mind is always "by whom should it be improved" ?

Oh, and BTW steam driven cars have been around since about 1902. ;)

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
8th November 2007, 16:42
Not what I meant to say about steam cars cos thats what youre saying, isnt it ? So oops me !

Osu
Trevor

Jay Vail
11th November 2007, 13:12
I think that when we delve back into the very beginnings of karate in the 1700s when Kushanku demonstrated his form of kempo it would have been a natural evolution for his students to eventually, as they reached an advanced state, modify it to suit the local mind set, physiology and culture.

I also accept that as generations pass and there are new masters on the block, once they have reached this sublime state they may very well have adjusted a kata/bunkai because they have seen a different way.

Osu
Trevor

The problem for karate is that apparently the 19th century masters who taught the people who taught us did not transmit kata applications with their teaching. Among other sources, Harry Cook's "Shotokan Karate: A Precise History," makes this abundantly clear. See also Bruce Clayton, "Shotokan's Secret."

In more than 35 years of doing this stuff, I have yet to run across anyone who can confidently say that their applications were handed down from 19th century teachers. Somewhere along the line, karate teachers stopped teaching applications and no one knows why.

It is a problem that has driven karate guys crazy for decades. The moves have to mean something otherwise we are just engaged in a more awkward "Dancing with the Stars." The question is what? So people have tried interpreting the forms. However, for the most part, what they come up with is strained and fanciful. Some of the stuff people used to come up with in the old days (talking the 70s) was gawd-awful.

Things are improving, but the results are spotty: some good, some still pretty bad.

There are a several reasons for this. The primary ones are that the interpreters 1) have no real combat experience, 2) think (for the most part, tho this is changing) that karate was just about punching and kicking, and 3) their overall technique set is limited. If all you know is punching and kicking in the dojo and maybe some rudimentary arm twisting, your interpretations will reflect this, and they will be narrow and unrealistic.

It's a really sad state of affairs.

The even sadder thing is that the applications for kata are, for the most part, really quite simple (tho I must qualify that by saying what I think the applications are; but then they are only my best guesses and they stand the same chance of being wrong as anybody else's).

ZachZinn
11th November 2007, 19:46
The problem for karate is that apparently the 19th century masters who taught the people who taught us did not transmit kata applications with their teaching. Among other sources, Harry Cook's "Shotokan Karate: A Precise History," makes this abundantly clear. See also Bruce Clayton, "Shotokan's Secret."

I'd guess there is some variation here, I don't personally think nothing was passed down, but it seems doubtful to me that most people were taught applications of every move from every kata, and honestly i'm not sure that's a bad thing per se.




It is a problem that has driven karate guys crazy for decades. The moves have to mean something otherwise we are just engaged in a more awkward "Dancing with the Stars." The question is what? So people have tried interpreting the forms. However, for the most part, what they come up with is strained and fanciful. Some of the stuff people used to come up with in the old days (talking the 70s) was gawd-awful.

I have not been training nearly as long as you, but I have seen in about the past 10 years some amazingly bad stuff, and some really really good stuff. I think the important thing is having some logical guidelines for kata interpretation.



The even sadder thing is that the applications for kata are, for the most part, really quite simple (tho I must qualify that by saying what I think the applications are; but then they are only my best guesses and they stand the same chance of being wrong as anybody else's).

I'd certainly agree there, it always amazes me when i've been taught an application by my teachers and it seems so simple and direct that I wonder how it is I never figured it out myself!

Another realization I have come to is that having a complete understanding of every kata is probably not realistic (speaking only for myself of course), so for me it is best to focus on a few kata and work from there.

Dick Mineo
12th November 2007, 05:27
Sorry it has been taking me so long to get back to the forum. Things just keep comming up that eat up my days lately - including computer problems.
I wind up reading so much before commenting, it is hard to remember everything that comes to mind while reading.
Some very nice quotes have been made and when I went back looking for them...I gave up and went back to the original question.



I am interested in which styles/schools teach bunkai with their kata. I would love to hear comments on the following questions:

- Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?
- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?
- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?

I look forward to your replies.

I have been a bit confused about parts of this discussion. I do realise that when a topic goes on as this one has, things do get comfusing. Lots of good stuff being said though.

So - it seems we all agree that the original kata should not be changed from the way you were taught. Naturally different styles have places of emphasis that gear a kata (even of the same name) toward the goals of that style.
In Goju for example - the form originator for me would be Mario Higaonna.
His kata made changes as his life progressed. That is - at first a basic kata might emphasise the punches. Later in life that same kata put more emphasis on the blocks or grabbing techniques within that same kata. This demonstrates a beginning way to teach the kata and a more advanced way.

For the third part of this question - How much variation is allowed from the kata movement ? As far as doing the kata it should be done the same way as originally taught, even though ones bunkai of that kata will and should transform into more complex or different emphasis depending on the opponents attack or counter.
A new example of this was just demonstrated on a tv series with 2 MMA students traveling the world looking for new styles of teaching. Part of it was with (my favorite) Mario Higaonna. This time he demonstrated - first the usual beginner bunkai for a kata, then an advanced one. Later he took them into a private room and showed them some even more devistating techniques than he was willing to show the public. These had to do with pressure points, ripping an opponents limbs and bones apart or even killing techniques.

All of these alterations of bunkai still come from the original kata form and that form done in its original way, actually still holds all of the possabilities inside of it.
Visualization is an important part of kata.
Bunkai is the outward demonstration of the visualization with in a kata.

I have found over the years that those original techniques had a lot more thought in them than most can even imagine. It takes years of practice to even start to dissect the possabilities.

The last part of this question - Developing altranate bunkai.
From what I have seen one would have to search long and hard to find a new bunkai for the kata techniques of the masters. If the bunkai follows the form then it is my belief that nothing one might find is new. It just was not taught to him by a master that knows or was not taught to him/her because they were not ready to learn it.

Jay Vail
12th November 2007, 13:49
I'd guess there is some variation here, I don't personally think nothing was passed down, but it seems doubtful to me that most people were taught applications of every move from every kata, and honestly i'm not sure that's a bad thing per se.




I have not been training nearly as long as you, but I have seen in about the past 10 years some amazingly bad stuff, and some really really good stuff. I think the important thing is having some logical guidelines for kata interpretation.



I'd certainly agree there, it always amazes me when i've been taught an application by my teachers and it seems so simple and direct that I wonder how it is I never figured it out myself!

Another realization I have come to is that having a complete understanding of every kata is probably not realistic (speaking only for myself of course), so for me it is best to focus on a few kata and work from there.


1. I have not been able to document that anything regarding applications of kata was passed down in karate. In contrast, the Chinese guys usually know exactly what their forms mean. If anybody would come forward with good reliable info with verifiable pedigrees, I would lap up the apps.

2. I agree you really should have hard, clear rules on how to interpret kata. Here are mine. First, here is what I think is kata's purpose. It is not self improvement or chi development. Kata are moving training manuals. Simply, techniques were put in a systemic format so that the trainee can remember the techniques. In short, they are a memory device.

Second, the movements in the kata are not literal. They are symbolic or figurative. They do not exactly mirror how a technique will be done in combat, but suggest it so the trainee can recall it. (Think the opening movements of Pinan/heian 3 with that chudan uke followed by what everyone thinks are simultaneous chudah and gedan blocks with the feet together. The opening of Pinan/Heian 5 is another example of movements that cannot be taken literally.)

Having recalled the technique from kata practice, the trainee should (and in my view must) break the techniques out and practice them in isolation with a partner as the Japanese weapons guys and the Chinese do with their pairs forms. You cannot learn the techniques and reliably apply them without pairs drill at a minimum. And ideally you should spar the techniques as well.

Third, as to the specific techniques, 1) the application must be simple and practical and address a common self defense problem. 2) The application must be a technique found in another martial art; preferrably more than one. This rule is necessary because no one is so good or such a genius that they are the first person to think of a technique. All the good ones have already been invented. Violate this rule and you're just pulling stuff out of your butt, and you know what comes out of there. (So the next time some smart guy shows you an application, ask him what other martial arts use it also. Odds are, he won't be able to tell you.) 3) The application must be verified; and by that I mean that you or someone you know has actually used the technique either in a real fight or in very hard freeplay that is as realistic as we can reasonably make it.

Fourth, using these principles, you will arrive at one or more primary techniques, which closely mirror (but do not necessarily exactly follow) the movements in the form. You may also arrive at one or more secondary or hidden techniques which do not closely follow the movements in the form but which are implied in the principles expressed by the movement.

I have applied these principles to the Pinan/Heian series and I think I've got them pretty much worked out. I also have derived applications for the Shotokan version of Bassai Dai. Interesting thing about that is that it is not a punching kicking form, but mainly a grappling form.

Of course, these interpretations reflect only by *opinion* and could just as well be far off the mark. Certainly, they are open to debate and disagreement.

3. There seem to be movements in the kata that have no significance other than as transitional movements from one set of techniques to another.

Dick -- re kata should be unchanged. It might interest you to know that the neither the Chinese look, nor the Okinawans looked, at kata as sacred objects. Both took a more practical view and changed their forms all the time. The Pinan/Heian series was only invented in the late 19th century, for instance. Lian bu chuan, the beginning form for Long Fist, was created in the 1920s. For that, it is a fine and useful form with lots of really good information in it. Jun Ti, the core form of military san shou of the PLA, is probably less than 50 years old.

If kata are training manuals rather than moving prayers, it makes no sense to keep them static and frozen.

There is some danger in changing the kata, however. In the past (that is during the 20th century), people changed the kata apparently because a particular movement did not make sense to them. The Heians have diverged from the Pinans as practiced today and from the original form of the series for this reason, I think. This complicates interpretation of the movements because stuff has been thrown in there for aesthetic reasons rather practical combative ones. That sort of change obscures the creator's original intent.

If you change the kata, or create your own, it should comply with the rules I have set out above. Otherwise, you run the risk of practicing s**t. That's okay if you want to do this yourself, but it is a crime to teach garbage to unsuspecting and trusting students.

All the best.

ZachZinn
13th November 2007, 05:13
Very nicely put Jay.

Dick Mineo
13th November 2007, 07:02
Dick -- re kata should be unchanged. It might interest you to know that the neither the Chinese look, nor the Okinawans looked, at kata as sacred objects. Both took a more practical view and changed their forms all the time. The Pinan/Heian series was only invented in the late 19th century, for instance. Lian bu chuan, the beginning form for Long Fist, was created in the 1920s. For that, it is a fine and useful form with lots of really good information in it. Jun Ti, the core form of military san shou of the PLA, is probably less than 50 years old.
Quote from Jay V.

--------------------------

When I make the comment that kata should not be changed, I really don't think I am disagreeing with you.
When I first started training and for many years, I had only heard of a few different styles. Now I have participated 4 different styles for from 3 years to 35 years and have witnessed at least 20 styles that are all quite different than eachother.
Turns out - many of them incorperate kata and these kata are very often quite similar in appearance and name. However when the interpertation of their bunkai or the actual moves have been changed a bit, these MA styles also changed the name of the style to eather the new masters name, region or added a new word to the beginning or end of the styles name.
In this case I believe it is fine to go ahead and change the kata.
If one is saying that his style is Goju Ryu or Shotokan then the kata should be as the original (Traditional) form was taught.

So what I am trying to say is. If one is effecient enough to create his own style then he/she can and should change a traditional kata but should not give their style the same name as the original kata came from.

Just don't consider that as Traditional. It is altered or new.

Don't get me wrong here....I have nothing against new.
With the combination of styles I have worked ranks in, I too change, add to, manipulate forms to morf into my own needs - such as lack of flexability, old age etc.
But when I teach a kata I teach it exactly as I learned it. Probably out of respect for the master that created it. As I said there is probably more thought into the basic katas in any particular style, than one can imagine, without decades of practice.

trevorg
13th November 2007, 09:21
Where I stand, is that it is all to do with transmission. I would not know if a technique had been altered before it has been passed to me, but if a teacher said to me "I've changed this because (whatever)" then I would seriously query it. I would like to think that what my teacher has been taught had been transmitted to him, and before that, in the same way and I truly believe there is a responsibility to continue to point the way in the traditional meaning of the word 'sensei' - he who has passed this way before.

In a way its all to do with respecting heritage and knowing that what has passed down to you is as undiluted as possible, and then it becomes your responsibility to pass it on.

I agree with Dick that if someone has the cojones to create their own style, then it is entirely up to them what they decide to transmit, as it will no doubt be entirely different to what they had learned. But, hey, its a free world.

The teacher is unlikely to believe he is practising rubbish karate so it is down to the students to make the decision. Most will not know and if they are satisfied they are learning what they think is 'real' karate, then fine. If a student has been elsewhere before, or goes and has a look at another ryu and asks appropriate questions then they will arrive at their own conclusion.

Osu
Trevor

Jay Vail
14th November 2007, 11:02
When I make the comment that kata should not be changed, I really don't think I am disagreeing with you


Dick, I was not disagreeing with you per se, but rather moving this very interesting thread forward a little. Sorry if it seemed that way. I'm not against changing the kata. I've done so myself. I no longer practice the Pinan/Heians exactly as I was taught them, for instance. And I do others differently and probably would teach them differently if I was to do so.

I wanted to point out, however, the dangers I see in changing the kata. I personally don't think people should change them lightly and when they do so, they should have good combative reasons for it.

Jay Vail
14th November 2007, 11:13
Where I stand, is that it is all to do with transmission. I would not know if a technique had been altered before it has been passed to me, but if a teacher said to me "I've changed this because (whatever)" then I would seriously query it. I would like to think that what my teacher has been taught had been transmitted to him, and before that, in the same way and I truly believe there is a responsibility to continue to point the way in the traditional meaning of the word 'sensei' - he who has passed this way before.

In a way its all to do with respecting heritage and knowing that what has passed down to you is as undiluted as possible, and then it becomes your responsibility to pass it on.

I agree with Dick that if someone has the cojones to create their own style, then it is entirely up to them what they decide to transmit, as it will no doubt be entirely different to what they had learned. But, hey, its a free world.

The teacher is unlikely to believe he is practising rubbish karate so it is down to the students to make the decision. Most will not know and if they are satisfied they are learning what they think is 'real' karate, then fine. If a student has been elsewhere before, or goes and has a look at another ryu and asks appropriate questions then they will arrive at their own conclusion.

Osu
Trevor

Sometimes you learn that you're teaching garbage by hard knocks. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxb0PCBV0vk Enjoy. :)

trevorg
14th November 2007, 12:25
Dick, I was not disagreeing with you per se, but rather moving this very interesting thread forward a little. Sorry if it seemed that way. I'm not against changing the kata. I've done so myself. I no longer practice the Pinan/Heians exactly as I was taught them, for instance. And I do others differently and probably would teach them differently if I was to do so.

I wanted to point out, however, the dangers I see in changing the kata. I personally don't think people should change them lightly and when they do so, they should have good combative reasons for it.

So, Jay, the question has to be why do you do them differently and would teach them differently ? I assume from what you say that you perceived the dangers in changing kata and that you, indeed, had a good combative reason as you say ?

osu
Trevor

trevorg
14th November 2007, 12:50
Sometimes you learn that you're teaching garbage by hard knocks. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxb0PCBV0vk Enjoy. :)

That's an old chestnut, but funny. In every occupation there's always a tosser so why should martial arts be any different ?

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate when discussing teaching 'rubbish' for me to say that in my view it's all a question of perception and definition. What is 'rubbish' ?:- Is it not traditional ? Is it not technically correct ? Doesn't it conform to conventional perceptions ? Is it just good old fashioned crap ie no knowledge whatsoever, just made up stuff ? Is it a scam ?

If it is just a sensei who is doing his own thing without regard to lineage, radition etc, but technically competent, then its the same old caveat emptor, which I tried to say before.

I am reminded of a young man I knew in the 70s whose surname was Rose, and decided aftger achieving shodan at another club to form his own style called the Way of the Wild Rose He was generally, technically fairly competent. He made up his own kata, bunkai etc and had healthy numbers in his class. The fact his club got wiped out in kumite competitions didnt appear to be neither here nor there as far as his students were concerned.

Personally, I did think what he was teaching was rubbish in the sense of lack of tradition and not conforming to anything I had ever seen before (mainly the kata and bunkai, not basics or free fighting), in which case I believed the art was being bastardised to such an extent that it would not have been possible to pass on that which he had been taught, and his students would learn only a hybrid form of karate. The sad thing is, looking into the future, if one of the students decided to do his own thing then he might very well be passing on what he thought were genuine techniques, and so on and so forth.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
14th November 2007, 21:05
I am reminded of a young man I knew in the 70s whose surname was Rose, and decided aftger achieving shodan at another club to form his own style called the Way of the Wild Rose He was generally, technically fairly competent. He made up his own kata, bunkai etc and had healthy numbers in his class. The fact his club got wiped out in kumite competitions didnt appear to be neither here nor there as far as his students were concerned.



This is an extreme example, and yeah, I don't think anyone here is on the same page as the "wild rose" guy (lol).

The minute changes I have noticed in learning Goju from having 2 teachers are things like slighty different stepping in X part of the kata, or an application having a slightly different emphasis or intent.

With changes that are this small i'm not even sure it's possible to detect who is doing the "original" and indeed, as Jay pointed out, probably no one is.

My guess is changes on this level are unavoidable, and i'm not sure it's worth trying to prevent them. That said, obviously this is a world apart than someone trying to make up their own kata etc.

Usually the results of endeavors like that are sub-par to say the least.

trevorg
14th November 2007, 22:10
Zach

Were you able to see how the sensei had changed the techniques from what they had been taught, or what you knew was the original (if that is the correct way to put it) technique ?

Perhaps it is 'differences' rather than 'changes' ?

However, I agree that it is unavoidable but it wouldnt be up to the student to prevent them because (a) they just couldnt anyway (b) they wouldnt know what was right or wrong. If it was me watching at a peer level I would be inclined to ask why theirs was different, and what caused the change.

Taking Jay's contribution further when he said "I'm not against changing the kata. I've done so myself. I no longer practice the Pinan/Heians exactly as I was taught them, for instance. And I do others differently and probably would teach them differently if I was to do so". (and btw I wish I could work out how to refer to specific quoted paragraphs - someone help me!) .

Although he didnt say yet why he had changed them it would be interesting to know if others have changed what was transmitted to them, and why. And why would anyone want to do them differently in the first place ? I can't believe this is natural evolution.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
14th November 2007, 22:23
Dick

(here we go again with my version of extracting a quote) you said "With the combination of styles I have worked ranks in, I too change, add to, manipulate forms to morf into my own needs - such as lack of flexability, old age etc. But when I teach a kata I teach it exactly as I learned it. Probably out of respect for the master that created it. As I said there is probably more thought into the basic katas in any particular style, than one can imagine, without decades of practice".

Sorry, but I missed that bit first time around and I just wanted to say how much that statement mirrors my own thoughts, which is that apart from the fact after continuous study and years of experience more and more of the bunkai becomes apparent, it is oh so true that as old age makes its mark and the body begins to slow down and fail in certain parts, that the mind (and body) compensate for the circumstances.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
14th November 2007, 23:15
Zach

Were you able to see how the sensei had changed the techniques from what they had been taught, or what you knew was the original (if that is the correct way to put it) technique ?

Perhaps it is 'differences' rather than 'changes' ?


Yes, that may be more accurate.

In Goju Ryu I have noticed that for the most part people seem to have very similar bunkai-oyo, Dick has alluded to some of it. However, people seem to have slightly different takes on the actual execution of techniques on a partner. To me this doesn't seem particularly odd.



However, I agree that it is unavoidable but it wouldnt be up to the student to prevent them because (a) they just couldnt anyway (b) they wouldnt know what was right or wrong. If it was me watching at a peer level I would be inclined to ask why theirs was different, and what caused the change.


Well, I am not at what I would call a peer level to either of my teachers, so I just take the differing things I've been taught as what they are, which is simply slightly different viewpoints on the same stuff.



Although he didnt say yet why he had changed them it would be interesting to know if others have changed what was transmitted to them, and why. And why would anyone want to do them differently in the first place ? I can't believe this is natural evolution.

osu
Trevor

Well let's be honest here, in terms of kata understanding it is probably pretty rare to find people of such a high skill level that every single application they have for every single kata (maybe even just the kata itself) is perfect. Most people seem to have kata and/or techniques they favor above others.

If a student feels what they have been taught regarding a given technique is incomplete they will most likely explore on their own, and by the time they have a few dan rank under their belt maybe they've come to their own conclusion on that technique.

I accept Jay's general premise that most Karateka were not given every single technique for every single kata. That would be a whole lot of techniques, and if that was the Karate teaching method I earnestly believe we would not have solo kata, we would have lists of 2 man form like Japanese arts do.

If you accept the above is true, then what is important is having a good ruleset for an intuitive understanding of kata, not rote memorization of techniques passed down exactly from generation to generation. Seriously I don't believe this kind of transmission exists (maybe John will argue that Chibana-Ha Shorin does, but I'd say that's the exception and not the rule, for better or worse)

No matter how amazing one's teacher, you cannot learn everything there is from them, some part of what you know comes from your own journey.

I assume this is where the "changes" we are talking about come from.

This is just speculation on my part, I am still new enough that I just ask questions of my teachers when I get to train with them, and take the answers at face value.

Nyuck3X
15th November 2007, 00:25
Seriously I don't believe this kind of transmission exists (maybe John will argue that Chibana-Ha Shorin does, but I'd say that's the exception and not the rule, for better or worse)


Miyahira Sensei (Chibana's longest student) has always maintained
that there are no secrets to kata. This reinforces my belief in good
kata reading ability. IMO, a teacher should teach how, to
read kata and not just give them the answers.

Trevor Johnson
15th November 2007, 00:49
Miyahira Sensei (Chibana's longest student) has always maintained
that there are no secrets to kata. This reinforces my belief in good
kata reading ability. IMO, a teacher should teach how, to
read kata and not just give them the answers.

And not give them something that's obviously wrong, either. There's a fairly famous series of tapes by Kenneth Funakoshi that show "bunkai" for the heian series. If any opponent ever attacked me like that, I'd probably die laughing. Things like blocking an attack from the side, the attacker mysteriously vanishing so you can block the front, etc. That's putting the bunk in bunkai. If you're interpreting the kata as part of a martial art, it is important that the bunkai be martial, yes?

If you teach your students to interpret a kata in a way that has no martial practice involved, then they're likely to find oyo that are similarly non-martial. If your bunkai are very practical, your students will pick that up.

Dick Mineo
15th November 2007, 07:23
Wow - This is getting tough. I need to figure out the quote thing so I can reply to more than one person's statements.
----------------
Quote
Dick, I was not disagreeing with you per se, but rather moving this very interesting thread forward a little. Sorry if it seemed that way. I'm not against changing the kata. I've done so myself. I no longer practice the Pinan/Heians exactly as I was taught them, for instance. And I do others differently and probably would teach them differently if I was to do so.

I wanted to point out, however, the dangers I see in changing the kata. I personally don't think people should change them lightly and when they do so, they should have good combative reasons for it.
-------------------
Reply
The difference here is - I do not change kata as I learned them in any way that I would keep or teach as the way to do that kata. Only as a way to incorperate something I see as a potential assist for my body style and ability (when I am practicing on my own). However the original teaching should be kept that way and as long as it is being taught as Goju Ryu (for example) it must be taught as the original. If someone taught you worngly that is bad. I have been correcting things I learned long ago even still, when I see it done by M. Higaonna - who in my mind is original enough. Naturally his style came from others teaching him but I have not dug back that far.
The bunkai can come from the original without changing the kata.
------------------------
I do hope these quoted come out in shaded boxes to avoid confusion
---------------------
Quote
Although he didnt say yet why he had changed them it would be interesting to know if others have changed what was transmitted to them, and why. And why would anyone want to do them differently in the first place ? I can't believe this is natural evolution.
-------------------------------
Reply
My statements here are to address this as well as the X footing statements of another post.
I have worked just about every variety of ways to do most of the kata I know. Well....at least the more basic ones.
That is - JoDan 1 & 2 I have done them where the punches are the emphasis and with open hand grab (in place of the punches) then emphasize the pull back, also making the forearm blocks the most prevelent part of the kata. I have worked them left handed as well as right handed. I have even worked the breath in opposite ways as prescribed in the original way.
However - This training was for my own use and only sometimes would I mention a finding if there was anything of interest to my fellow partners of equal rank.
Then in a kata like Mawashiuki and Kakiuki I worked the X pattern of footing for the snap turns. This one was interesting enough to show my conrads.
I found that stepping across with the front foot then doing the snap turn was quite different than stepping across with the back foot first. If this was to be used in bunkai - it would depend on the distance the opponent was from your back side before doing the cross step. There is also other body changes necessasary to make both methods efficient but for me this one became a keeper. Still though I would teach the kata only with the front foot crossing first, as it was originally taught.
I must say that these practice did help my reaction to some attacks but nothing worth trying to teach someone else. Just my compulsive methods of self training.
-------------------------
Quote
Sorry, but I missed that bit first time around and I just wanted to say how much that statement mirrors my own thoughts, which is that apart from the fact after continuous study and years of experience more and more of the bunkai becomes apparent, it is oh so true that as old age makes its mark and the body begins to slow down and fail in certain parts, that the mind (and body) compensate for the circumstances
--------------
Reply
My feeling exactly.
More bunkai become apparent as one works with the moves in a kata. That is the beauty of the original kata usually looking fairly basic. IT IS.
Black belt rank only means one knows and understands the basics. After than one needs to dig deep for meanings behind it all. Nicely stated Trevor.
------------------
Quote
In Goju Ryu I have noticed that for the most part people seem to have very similar bunkai-oyo, Dick has alluded to some of it. However, people seem to have slightly different takes on the actual execution of techniques on a partner. To me this doesn't seem particularly odd.
---------------------
Reply
Exactly. Since there are usually more than one interpertation of a move, who ever taught it to you might have only gotten one of what was being taught to him, or the one he likes the most out of what was taught. That is ok as long as the one you teach is a viable one.
----------------
Quote
No matter how amazing one's teacher, you cannot learn everything there is from them, some part of what you know comes from your own journey.

I assume this is where the "changes" we are talking about come from.
-------------
Reply
I do believe you are right . That is the best a teacher can expect. For his student to learn what he can, then keep working on himself. There is no -learning it all - any way.
------------------
Quote
Miyahira Sensei (Chibana's longest student) has always maintained
that there are no secrets to kata. This reinforces my belief in good
kata reading ability. IMO, a teacher should teach how, to
read kata and not just give them the answers
---------------
Reply
Nicely said.
-------------
SORRY I GOT SO WORDY HERE TONIGHT. HOPE I GOT SOMEWHERE WITH IT ALL.

Nyuck3X
15th November 2007, 19:00
And not give them something that's obviously wrong, either. There's a fairly famous series of tapes by Kenneth Funakoshi that show "bunkai" for the heian series. If any opponent ever attacked me like that, I'd probably die laughing. Things like blocking an attack from the side, the attacker mysteriously vanishing so you can block the front, etc. That's putting the bunk in bunkai. If you're interpreting the kata as part of a martial art, it is important that the bunkai be martial, yes?

If you teach your students to interpret a kata in a way that has no martial practice involved, then they're likely to find oyo that are similarly non-martial. If your bunkai are very practical, your students will pick that up.

Yes, the teacher needs to define what the parameters are for good
self defense verses tournament bunkai. I personally am of the
opinion that you need to get things done in 3 or 4 moves, otherwise
you are depending on too many preconcieved responses from uke.

Shorin Ryuu
15th November 2007, 20:10
If you accept the above is true, then what is important is having a good ruleset for an intuitive understanding of kata, not rote memorization of techniques passed down exactly from generation to generation. Seriously I don't believe this kind of transmission exists (maybe John will argue that Chibana-Ha Shorin does, but I'd say that's the exception and not the rule, for better or worse)

You're right, I would argue that... of course, I would say that we do focus on the how, as the what is merely a starting point. I am not a fan of modification if something works well already. There is always the process of refining, but that has more to do with you than changing the movements of your kata. Once you change the timing or motion to emphasize more trivial things like speed or aesthetics (visual or otherwise), you've lost it.

I do agree with you on the exception rather than the rule statement...

As a matter of semantics, we just call what we do Shorin Ryu, not Chibana-ha or whatever (no offense to people who do, but they are just a different group of people).

Nyuck3X
15th November 2007, 23:31
You're right, I would argue that... of course, I would say that we do focus on the how, as the what is merely a starting point. I am not a fan of modification if something works well already. There is always the process of refining, but that has more to do with you than changing the movements of your kata. Once you change the timing or motion to emphasize more trivial things like speed or aesthetics (visual or otherwise), you've lost it.

I do agree with you on the exception rather than the rule statement...

As a matter of semantics, we just call what we do Shorin Ryu, not Chibana-ha or whatever (no offense to people who do, but they are just a different group of people).

I agree that changing the kata is unessesary. There is plenty to learn
in kata the way that it is. It's the oyo and understanding of it that
IMO can change.

I believe it was Estrada Sensei that started using the term Chibana-ha.
When you say we, are you saying your school or most people in this
line of Shorin-ryu? Many of Nakazato and Iha Sensei's group has adopted it.
In the general public I just refer to it as Shorin-ryu, but since we are here
in a group of people who are knowlegable about karate, I specify it. I
like to think I am enlightening those who are new to karate and do not know
that there are different schools. Agreed, if you don't know enough
to ask what type, then it probably doesn't matter. Then again, we are
a society who wants to know where everything comes from. This
very thread shows that.

Trevor Johnson
16th November 2007, 00:53
Yes, the teacher needs to define what the parameters are for good
self defense verses tournament bunkai. I personally am of the
opinion that you need to get things done in 3 or 4 moves, otherwise
you are depending on too many preconcieved responses from uke.

Well, the responses from uke can go into oyo, if you like. One of the most "interesting" (read "painful") demonstrations I've seen was one where the uke tried to resist, and foiled the bunkai "as written." The tori, or sensei, in this case, was able to change into an alternate interpretation of the kata so smoothly that we didn't realize for a bit that uke'd been resisting, since he went down anyway! Now THAT's well trained bunkai!

If you look at responses from the uke as a cloud of possible responses, sort of like an atomic orbital, you can define the most likely responses to a technique. If the responses/adaptations to those go outside the kata form, they can be called oyo, if they stay within, you might want to call them bunkai. Those need to be trained at least a little. The much less probable responses to a technique can stay less trained/untrained. There's probably enough overlap with another set of bunkai that they're covered, I would think. If not, they may be so unlikely as to be pointless to train. One teacher I know has gone and looked at the basic stats of what attacks are most likely, like grab-punch or headbutt, and he teaches drills specifically designed against those, some as bunkai, some as non-kata-based drills. Really unlikely attacks aren't covered.

ZachZinn
16th November 2007, 01:29
Yes, the teacher needs to define what the parameters are for good
self defense verses tournament bunkai. I personally am of the
opinion that you need to get things done in 3 or 4 moves, otherwise
you are depending on too many preconcieved responses from uke.

Yeah it's my understanding (via training with Wilder sensei and using his book) that techniques should be "non-diagnostic", i.e. I don't need a "if this then that" type scenario to get the job done, just simple effective waza that handle a variety of situations.

This kind of conceptual framework has really made alot of difference for me in terms of useful application.

Shorin Ryuu
16th November 2007, 05:52
I believe it was Estrada Sensei that started using the term Chibana-ha.
When you say we, are you saying your school or most people in this
line of Shorin-ryu? Many of Nakazato and Iha Sensei's group has adopted it.
In the general public I just refer to it as Shorin-ryu, but since we are here
in a group of people who are knowlegable about karate, I specify it. I
like to think I am enlightening those who are new to karate and do not know
that there are different schools. Agreed, if you don't know enough
to ask what type, then it probably doesn't matter. Then again, we are
a society who wants to know where everything comes from. This
very thread shows that.

Perhaps it was Estrada Sensei that started doing all of that. I don't agree with everything he has to say history-wise, but it's up to him if he wants to call it that. I just don't see his reasoning why. As for those of Nakazato Sensei's and Iha Sensei's group who started doing so, again, I don't see the reasoning why. I would imagine some groups are legitimately trying to honor Chibana Sensei's legacy, some are trying to just sound unique, and some are trying to sound more legitimate. Chibana's style is simply Shorin Ryu, not a Chibana version of Shorin Ryu, since he coined the name in the first place.

All this being said, I find the term much less baffling than "Kobayashi Shorin Ryu" Or "Kobayashi Ryu"...

When I use the term "we", it tends to refer to the Shorin Ryu whose lineage goes from Chibana Sensei to Pat Nakata here in Hawaii.

Jay Vail
16th November 2007, 11:38
So, Jay, the question has to be why do you do them differently and would teach them differently ? I assume from what you say that you perceived the dangers in changing kata and that you, indeed, had a good combative reason as you say ?

osu
Trevor

I was raised pretty much a Shotokan (although that came after I got a black belt in TKD), but I don't have much faith in the Shotokan variations of the Pinan/Heian series anymore. I try to do the kata in that series more as they are done by the Matsubayashi ryu people, with a bit of the Shito thrown in on some of the movements just because I like some of the principles embodied in the Shito variations. Mainly I do things this way because I think the Matsubayashi version is closer to the original version of the Pinans, and I want to understand what the creator had in mind.

One of the things that happens, for instance, is that in the Shotokan version of Pinan/Heian 5, you make this crescent kick and follow it with what appears as a gedan barai. I leave out the kick as do the Matsubayashi people (at least so far as I have seen), step through and make the gedan (although sometimes I do the kick, too). I think the Shotokan guys added the kick because they couldn't figure out why you take that step into the horse and make a down block. However, there is a perfectly good reason why you do: this is a throw (IMO), and you are not doing a down block but using your arm to throw the guy over your right leg in which is actually a very aikido like technique. The move, in fact, is a staple in both western and Asian weapons fighting.

I don't do Hangetsu/Seisan as I was taught. I leave out that silly tension stuff. I vary the blocks throughout. In the standard version, they are all chudan uke. However, I really like this form as I think it teaches some basic fundamentals, so I vary the blocks and do: shuto, jodan, and gedan. I also do the ending differently. In the standard version, the kata ends with the heels of the palms together and the palms facing downward. I have not been able to find a satisfactory application for this and to me the posture is enigmatic and does not seem to reflect anything combative. So I do it slightly differently to reflect a grab of an arm making a straight thrust from below to the abdomen with a knife, as shown in the Flos Duellatorum and Hans Talhoffer (1443, 1459, 1467 versions).

Jay Vail
16th November 2007, 11:50
That's an old chestnut, but funny. In every occupation there's always a tosser so why should martial arts be any different ?

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate when discussing teaching 'rubbish' for me to say that in my view it's all a question of perception and definition. What is 'rubbish' ?:- Is it not traditional ? Is it not technically correct ? Doesn't it conform to conventional perceptions ? Is it just good old fashioned crap ie no knowledge whatsoever, just made up stuff ? Is it a scam ?

If it is just a sensei who is doing his own thing without regard to lineage, radition etc, but technically competent, then its the same old caveat emptor, which I tried to say before.

I am reminded of a young man I knew in the 70s whose surname was Rose, and decided aftger achieving shodan at another club to form his own style called the Way of the Wild Rose He was generally, technically fairly competent. He made up his own kata, bunkai etc and had healthy numbers in his class. The fact his club got wiped out in kumite competitions didnt appear to be neither here nor there as far as his students were concerned.

Personally, I did think what he was teaching was rubbish in the sense of lack of tradition and not conforming to anything I had ever seen before (mainly the kata and bunkai, not basics or free fighting), in which case I believed the art was being bastardised to such an extent that it would not have been possible to pass on that which he had been taught, and his students would learn only a hybrid form of karate. The sad thing is, looking into the future, if one of the students decided to do his own thing then he might very well be passing on what he thought were genuine techniques, and so on and so forth.

Osu
Trevor

Trevor, my definition of "rubbish" is what does not work on the street. :cool:

trevorg
16th November 2007, 15:21
So, here comes the leading rhetorical question for all you great posters on this thread:

If you could choose just one bunkai that you would use on the street which you believe to be the most efficacious, what would it be ?


Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
17th November 2007, 01:06
So, here comes the leading rhetorical question for all you great posters on this thread:

If you could choose just one bunkai that you would use on the street which you believe to be the most efficacious, what would it be ?


Osu
Trevor

The armbar techniques I have learned from saifa are pretty nasty, other than that though honestly the chudan-uke & punch combo uses that you see in so many Goju kata (and the basic moves that make up sanchin) is really good, reliable stuff with alot of different uses.

Moenstah
17th November 2007, 01:14
So, here comes the leading rhetorical question for all you great posters on this thread:

If you could choose just one bunkai that you would use on the street which you believe to be the most efficacious, what would it be ?


Osu
Trevor

Kata shisochin: block on the elbow in combination with the kick/sweep to the front leg of your opponent.

Jay Vail
17th November 2007, 01:52
So, here comes the leading rhetorical question for all you great posters on this thread:

If you could choose just one bunkai that you would use on the street which you believe to be the most efficacious, what would it be ?


Osu
Trevor


Such a question is meaningless. Your defense depends on the type of attack. One size does not fit all.

ZachZinn
17th November 2007, 19:27
Such a question is meaningless. Your defense depends on the type of attack. One size does not fit all.

Ok, just to play devils advocate here....while one size does not neccessarily fit all, there are certain 'phrases' (for lack of a better word) that appear in kata more than others, and to my mind these are the high percentage techniques because they handle a different range of attacks, and do not depend on a specific attack from uke.

trevorg
17th November 2007, 19:52
Such a question is meaningless. Your defense depends on the type of attack. One size does not fit all.


That's why I underlined the word 'rhetorical'. Of course its meaningless in the context of the immeasurable variations, so give it a try just for me !

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
18th November 2007, 02:45
That's why I underlined the word 'rhetorical'. Of course its meaningless in the context of the immeasurable variations, so give it a try just for me !

Osu
Trevor


What are yours Trevor?

trevorg
18th November 2007, 10:50
I would stand side by side with Remi.

Osu
Trevor

Jay Vail
18th November 2007, 12:34
That's why I underlined the word 'rhetorical'. Of course its meaningless in the context of the immeasurable variations, so give it a try just for me !

Osu
Trevor

Okay, then. Just for fun. Assuming an attack from the front, then a front kick to the shins with the bottom of the foot. If he's behind, then a low back/side kick to the shins. See Mike Young, "Martial Arts Techniques for Law Enforcement," p. 138: "I have yet to see an assailant withstand a full power shin kick delivered to the inside of his shin by an officer's uniform shoes or boots." Did this to a guy once who had grabbed me by the collar and was shaking me around like a rag doll. He fell down and that was that. :cool:

trevorg
19th November 2007, 09:34
To which kata does that belong ?

Osu
Trevor

Moenstah
19th November 2007, 12:26
I would stand side by side with Remi.

Osu
Trevor

Hooray! :cool:

trevorg
19th November 2007, 13:13
4,065 views !!!!!:)

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
19th November 2007, 17:00
4,065 views !!!!!:)

Osu
Trevor

We are famous now.

Nyuck3X
19th November 2007, 18:20
To which kata does that belong ?

Osu
Trevor

Naihanchi Shodan. Those sweeps at both ends of the kata can be
kicks to the inside of the shin as well as inside of the thigh or downward
thrusts to collapse the knee.

TonyU
20th November 2007, 04:39
Perhaps it was Estrada Sensei that started doing all of that. I don't agree with everything he has to say history-wise, but it's up to him if he wants to call it that. I just don't see his reasoning why. As for those of Nakazato Sensei's and Iha Sensei's group who started doing so, again, I don't see the reasoning why. I would imagine some groups are legitimately trying to honor Chibana Sensei's legacy, some are trying to just sound unique, and some are trying to sound more legitimate. Chibana's style is simply Shorin Ryu, not a Chibana version of Shorin Ryu, since he coined the name in the first place.

All this being said, I find the term much less baffling than "Kobayashi Shorin Ryu" Or "Kobayashi Ryu"...

When I use the term "we", it tends to refer to the Shorin Ryu whose lineage goes from Chibana Sensei to Pat Nakata here in Hawaii.
I haven't been here in a while, but if I may address this. Iha sensei Shorin Ryu does not resemble Nakzato's Shorin Ryu anymore. Iha sensei attributes this to his training for 4 years under Gusakuma sensei form 1950 to 54 or so. He adapted a lot of things from that training. He also stated (to us) that he also brought back things that were changed by Chibana sensei. So in essence calling it Chibana ha would be correct as I predict within the next generation if not sooner everyone could and probably would call it Iha ha Shorin Ryu as there is a difference.

Shorin Ryuu
20th November 2007, 08:58
I haven't been here in a while, but if I may address this. Iha sensei Shorin Ryu does not resemble Nakzato's Shorin Ryu anymore. Iha sensei attributes this to his training for 4 years under Gusakuma sensei form 1950 to 54 or so. He adapted a lot of things from that training. He also stated (to us) that he also brought back things that were changed by Chibana sensei. So in essence calling it Chibana ha would be correct as I predict within the next generation if not sooner everyone could and probably would call it Iha ha Shorin Ryu as there is a difference.

I guess. Maybe all this "ha" sounds too Japanese for me. Makes it sound like kenjutsu or something. I figure if you're going to teach Chibana karate, then you might as well call it what he called it. Of course, everyone's free to do what they want... I'm not really going to badger anyone about it.

At any rate, I'm neither a Nakazato guy nor a Iha guy, so... I'll just stick to calling it the original name of Shorin Ryu.



But to answer the question, I can say the strongest move in Shorin as we know it is the opening move to our kihon shodan kata. This isn't simple lip service to the idea of keeping things simple, which so many people like to give. When you can walk up to a man, control him, and hit him based on the understanding of this "simple move", then you will be virtually unbeatable.

Victor Smith
20th November 2007, 09:15
Trevor,

The kick described is one of Naifanchi's many applications.

TonyU
20th November 2007, 20:24
At any rate, I'm neither a Nakazato guy nor a Iha guy, so... I'll just stick to calling it the original name of Shorin Ryu.


I understand perfectly and nothing wrong with that as well. I hope that did not come across in my post. That wasn't my intention. Was just trying to clarify as to possibly why the description came about.

Anyway, sorry for the thread highjack.

ZachZinn
21st November 2007, 01:05
But to answer the question, I can say the strongest move in Shorin as we know it is the opening move to our kihon shodan kata. This isn't simple lip service to the idea of keeping things simple, which so many people like to give. When you can walk up to a man, control him, and hit him based on the understanding of this "simple move", then you will be virtually unbeatable.

Not sure whether or not i'm familiar with that, does it look like a jodan uke?

trevorg
22nd November 2007, 20:20
Zach, have you realised the views today,thats an increase of 250 since three days ago ! If all the viewers posted at this rate and kept it going this could become one long running thread !

I wonder if Sheree is back from her sojourn with her Sensei in Japan yet ? It would be interesting to know if she spoke to him about the subject and, if she did, what his views are.

Osu
Trevor

TonyU
23rd November 2007, 18:39
As I was invited to this thread I will answer your questions (which I think are good and valid questions). I as of yet have read all the responses so I will limit my responses to my opinion, experience. and what we do in our school.
Before I do thought, I would like to give you my background for those that do not know me as I'm not as active on this board.
I've been training in Chibana-ha Shorin Ryu for 22 years of my 24 years of training. Train in BJJ for 3 years (no longer have the time). Been a cop for 14 years.




- Does your style/school teach/require bunkai?
Yes, and yes.

- If so, is there a one to one relationship between kata movement and bunkai or a one to many relationship?
There can be one to many. We had one Okinawan sensei shows a bunkai with the caveat that it was his interpretation and not his sensei's.

- How much variation do you allow from the kata movement?
This question I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean during the during the application of the bunaki? or during the kata itself. Kata never changes, but there can be some variations during the bunkai as long the basic principles of the kata are there.

- Are students/instructors allowed to devlop alternate bunkai?
Yes.

As I stated in another thread I myself and our students are encouraged to look into other styles as it can give you insight into your own.
For example we have guests instructors from different disciplines come to our winter camps. I personally travel all over the country teaching but at the same time learning in multiple art seminars. Not that I'm looking to master or even learn another art but to learn something I can use. If I can I keep it, if I can't I throw it out.
Not only have I learned alot but have made some lasting friendships.

Sheree Adams
26th November 2007, 18:43
Zach, have you realised the views today,thats an increase of 250 since three days ago ! If all the viewers posted at this rate and kept it going this could become one long running thread !

I wonder if Sheree is back from her sojourn with her Sensei in Japan yet ? It would be interesting to know if she spoke to him about the subject and, if she did, what his views are.

Osu
Trevor

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I'm back, although I wish I wasn't. Since I'm at work, just checking the post while devouring lunch, now's not the best time to reply. I see there's been many posts. Perhaps someone could give me a synopsis of what has transpired while I was away. I would be happy to give you my understanding on O'Sensei's views on bunkai.

Thanks,
Sheree

trevorg
29th November 2007, 16:34
Hello Sheree

Good to see you back. Hope you enjoyed yourself and learned much from your Sensei.

That's a tall order; to give you a synopsis. In essence there is still a mixed view but I think this derives mainly from posters' interpretation of the original point and how that has evolved throughout the discussion. The majority seem to believe that bunkai as it was passed down shouldnt be changed, but equally acknowledge there is a natural evolution. This view holds that no matter what has been passed down it must dilute over a period of time. This was supported by the obvious comparison with Chinese whispers. ie everything must change as a natural consequence as nothing can remain absolute for ever.

However, a central view is that the longer one practises an art, the more of the bunkai is revealed to you, which unfortunately means those with not many years practice are more malleable and susceptible to change, either for change's sake or that they have not reached a higher state of awareness.

It was logical for the discussion to move on to real life situations and how one's learning might be effective ie was the application taught just too rigid for the environment, opponent's physiology etc.

If I was to attempt to put the whole shebang into a nutshell, first and foremost that it has been a completely enlightening and stimulating debate in which I was pleased to have made some small contribution. It would appear on balance that there is a preference for bunkai to remain unchanged as it was passed down, or at least as it was passed to the student by his/her particular sensei in relation to karate as it is practised in the dojo and to help ensure heritage is not lost.

Without going through all the posts, I hope I have got it right but if anyone thinks/knows otherwise please add some more for Sheree.

Was this an issue you discussed with your Sensei, Sheree ?

Osu
Trevor

Shorin Ryuu
29th November 2007, 20:54
Not sure whether or not i'm familiar with that, does it look like a jodan uke?

No. For the opening move in our kihon shodan (which I said we consider the strongest move in Shorin), you stand in a natural stance, feet about shoulder-width apart (at 45 degree angles) and fists down in front. Weight is in a 50/50 distribution, centered.

Your left foot sweeps out in crescent step (I get hazy on the exact terminology). Basically, sweeps in and out along an arc and returns to a position shoulder-width apart, but settles back in to where the back of the left foot would be on the same horizontal line as the toe of the right foot. So the left foot ends up slightly forward of its original position with the toes slightly inward and the heel slightly outward.

As the leg and foot moves out, the left arm forms a similar arc, going from in front of your left side, out in front to your right side, and then back in front of your left side, only it does so in an arc along the entire path and ends up around chest level. During the outward sweep, the fingers of the hand are pointed out straight with the thumb pointing down.

Towards the end of the movement, the gripping with the hand takes place. As the gripping takes place, it is timed with the settling of the left foot which pulls the opponent down and off balance with your body weight instead of your arm. It is important to clear the space in front so that an attack from the opponent's left or right side will be cleared. The actual grabbing occurs at the end.

Also during the movement, the concept of back pull is used, where both sides of the back are pulling inwards as if pinching the shoulder blades together as the body angles off (the body doesn't have to angle off, it just does in this technique). This makes the technique stronger by employing both sides of the body and avoiding a collapse in posture. Using the proper muscles is important so the technique locks down properly with your body weight and pulls rather than pushes or rises.

The grab as described above is meant to be used whether the person is attacking you or just trying to put up a guard which you can clear easily (no sense punching around his hands, just move them out of the way). Obviously, it requires a closing of distance, which if studied, is aided by the stepping as described as the distance enters fighting range.

After all that stuff happens at the same time, you punch him... which would also take a while to explain, but I'll leave it at that.

If one watches from the side, it looks like a really simple move, but the concepts of how the weight is controlled, how clearing and entry takes place, how the basic punch is executed, posture, etc. form the basis of study for every single move in our kata. So as I mentioned in this thread before, the moves we tend to do are very simple, but we put a lot of work into them.

Hope that goes a little way in describing it.

ZachZinn
29th November 2007, 21:31
No. For the opening move in our kihon shodan (which I said we consider the strongest move in Shorin), you stand in a natural stance, feet about shoulder-width apart (at 45 degree angles) and fists down in front. Weight is in a 50/50 distribution, centered.


Yeah I get, I think i've seen it before, and my guess is that in practice it is similar in terms of controlling to the use of the chudan-uke/reverse punch combo that you see in alot of Goju kata.

If you know of or come across a video please post it!

Dick Mineo
6th December 2007, 01:01
Shorin R.
I recognise that move from a Goju background as well and as you say - basics are always best for the strongest most direct method of getting the job done.

It comes to this with any style.
At first a punch seems to be just a punch and a kick just a kick...but when you get in class and start breaking it down, one begins to realise that a punch is a very technical and multi-fasceted combination of coordinated muscle, breath, timeing, distancing and mind techniques..... all wrapped into one split second. Then after a lot of practice a punch becomes just a punch and kick just a kick again.
So this technique might be the same or atleast close to the same, no matter which style is teaching it.

trevorg
6th December 2007, 09:38
Just a short note to say that Dick is up there in Washington state where the floods are and I know he lives by a lake where there was a lot of snow, suddenly washed away the next day. He was anticipating a loss of power, so here's wishing him and his well.

Osu
Trevor

Sheree Adams
6th December 2007, 16:53
Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the great synopsis. I'm going to reply just need a moment sit down at my home computer. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the reply and am not ignoring it.

And, yes, it's something my Sensei talks about a lot.

Thanks,
Sheree

Shorin Ryuu
6th December 2007, 23:56
Yeah I get, I think i've seen it before, and my guess is that in practice it is similar in terms of controlling to the use of the chudan-uke/reverse punch combo that you see in alot of Goju kata.

If you know of or come across a video please post it!


Shorin R.
I recognise that move from a Goju background as well and as you say - basics are always best for the strongest most direct method of getting the job done.


I'd honestly have to see this done, since I am unsure of which move is being referred to.

Which kata would I see this in? If you give me one, I will look for it.

ZachZinn
7th December 2007, 00:10
I'd honestly have to see this done, since I am unsure of which move is being referred to.

Which kata would I see this in? If you give me one, I will look for it.


It's in virtually all of them, the opening chudan kamae/punch combo from Sanchin is in alot of the kata, it can also be performed with the hand pronated out and open, which is probably closer to the meaning of your kihon I suspect.

This is the technique : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoXQbRCZNmQ

Obviously this is a very basic interpretation of it, and a somewhat subdued performance; but you can get the basic picture from this, it can be performed opening and closing also.

Dick Mineo
7th December 2007, 04:25
Just a short note to say that Dick is up there in Washington state where the floods are and I know he lives by a lake where there was a lot of snow, suddenly washed away the next day. He was anticipating a loss of power, so here's wishing him and his well.

Osu
Trevor

Update on snow storm, wind damage and flood.
A bit off topic but - will try to make it brief.
Within 3 days we had a serious wind storm along with 16 inches of snow, no electric power, no water, hard rain and overnight complete melting of the snow.
This strange combination of things left us with deep trenches along the road down the mountain to town, a compeltely flooded business section, a bridge knocked out, a couple of land slides that would not allow us to go anywhere for 3 days (detours now let us go South but still can not go north), houses crushed and one death from landslides. Our neighbors huge tree dropped a large section onto a tree in our lot and left us with quite a mess but no real damage there. The hill down to town looks like pick up sticks with all of the trees laying around.
Actually I think it has been a lot of fun and excitment but most of the neighbors were lost and confused - just not prepared I guess. My wife and I were just camping out in our house, cooking on the wood stove and enjoying the short lived beauty of the snow, with candle light and radio news.
Anxious to see what will come next.

trevorg
7th December 2007, 09:30
Oyama rides again !;)

Osu
Trevor

Skeptical
10th December 2007, 09:10
This is a reply I posted on Shorin Ryuu's blog from his description of "the strongest move in Shorin Ryu". He had been searching for a way to reply to any who suggested that this move from kihon was on a fundamental level similar to a move seen in the sanchin of Goju-Ryu/Uechi-Ryu. My response to this assertion was to suggest that they are not the same based on fundamental differences between the kihon and sanchin stances. I'm re-posting here on his request:

The kihon stance bujutsu blogger describes is fundamentally different from a sanchin stance. These differ in three primary ways (based on my limited understanding/experimentation with Naha Te). First, only one set of toes are pointed slightly in (the heel is not deliberately thrust out as I have seen in Naha Te, but the slight turn in of the toes has the byproduct of the heel being slightly out), and these belong to the lead foot. The back foot is open with toes pointing 45 degrees.

Second, the legs are "collapsed" (please note the quotations) in Naha Te in order to protect vital points in the inner thigh and groin. This "closes" the Sanchin stance. The Kihon stance is very open, with stress being put on the outside edges of the feet.

Third, the pelvis is thrust forward, effectively tightening the butt cheeks and closing the anal sphincter to protect vital points in the rear. This also has the effect of applying hara in the completely opposite manner that it is applied in Kihon. Because of the forward thrust of the pelvis, hara is essentially lifted up and back. In Chibana Kihon, the hara is dropped down and forward.

While these differences might appear superficial, especially visually, the cumulative effect of these differences result in substantially different methodologies of power generation. Bujutsu Blogger and I have found the Chibana methodology to be the one that makes the most sense for our bodies and the intent behind our training.

Sheree Adams
18th December 2007, 17:43
Response for Trevor Gilbert

Hello Sheree

Good to see you back. Hope you enjoyed yourself and learned much from your Sensei.

<Thank you. It was a fantastic trip, the best one yet. Of course, I seem to always say that, but it was a particularly great training trip and the vacation time after was most enjoyable.

I did learn much from my Sensei but I suppose I would probably like to quantify that and say much deeper knowledge was gained versus much more. Of course there was new knowledge but it’s the building of layer upon layer that always makes for those “ah ha” moments.>

That's a tall order; to give you a synopsis. In essence there is still a mixed view but I think this derives mainly from posters' interpretation of the original point and how that has evolved throughout the discussion. The majority seem to believe that bunkai as it was passed down shouldn’t be changed, but equally acknowledge there is a natural evolution. This view holds that no matter what has been passed down it must dilute over a period of time. This was supported by the obvious comparison with Chinese whispers. i.e. everything must change as a natural consequence as nothing can remain absolute forever.

<I can’t agree more that there is a natural evolution. My Sensei says that the most adept student will only learn 80% of what his teacher has to teach and that student’s student will only learn 80% of that. Hence the importance of becoming the most adept student that you can be, knowing that you will only ever attain 80% and then pass on 80%, assuming all goes well.

Part of the natural evolution will be what influences your teacher has due to who and what he/she is, his/her own development or fortes, the time and influences of his/her practice, etc.>

However, a central view is that the longer one practises an art, the more of the bunkai is revealed to you, which unfortunately means those with not many years practice are more malleable and susceptible to change, either for change's sake or that they have not reached a higher state of awareness.

<Yes, that definitely seems to be the case that the less time training the more likely that one is susceptible to change and is resistant to the concept of staying the course. Perhaps this occurs as part of our natural inquisitive nature. However, the key is not to get distracted by what is easy. It usually takes perseverance to gain in-depth knowledge in anything and karate takes even more so, given the method of transmission (meaning Okinawa karate from an Okinawan teacher to a non-native) not to mention that perfecting the execution of any physical aspect does not happen overnight. Using our desire for knowledge to explore bunkai is a good thing if we keep in mind that we’re only scratching the surface in the first decade or two of training and we need to keep scratching.>

It was logical for the discussion to move on to real life situations and how one's learning might be effective i.e. was the application taught just too rigid for the environment, opponent's physiology etc.

<Ah, and I think that this is a key element of what is being transmitted to us. At least for those that train in a traditional Okinawan system. More on that later.>

If I was to attempt to put the whole shebang into a nutshell, first and foremost that it has been a completely enlightening and stimulating debate in which I was pleased to have made some small contribution. It would appear on balance that there is a preference for bunkai to remain unchanged as it was passed down, or at least as it was passed to the student by his/her particular sensei in relation to karate as it is practised in the dojo and to help ensure heritage is not lost.

<And heritage is an important consideration. This can be part and parcel of how our practice is dictated. If one just wanted to be the most capable person today then they would have to take into consideration their choice of weapon, how they deal with the possibility of bodily harm or death should a confrontation take place, the consequences of that, etc. etc. I think what people forget sometimes, and this is a crucial element, is where karate comes from. I know everyone gets sick and tired of hearing about Okinawa but that is where karate comes from and the whole culture has a tremendous effect on how it evolved and what it is we have today.>

Without going through all the posts, I hope I have got it right but if anyone thinks/knows otherwise please add some more for Sheree.

<Well, for such a tall order you seem to have risen to the occasion quite nicely. A very nice synopsis, Trevor.>

Was this an issue you discussed with your Sensei, Sheree ?

Osu
Trevor


<This is an issue that is always discussed every time I see my Sensei. In fact, is saddens him greatly to see what is happening to karate in Okinawa and that, in all likelihood, it will die out in another generation or so. There is a tremendous amount of influence from outside Okinawa for people to be competitive (mostly with Japan) and therefore karate is changing. He believes there are only about 4 lineages still practicing true Okinawan karate today.

Something to consider:
If you look at the history of Okinawa, as most people know, it was a place where many different cultures came together to trade. Prosperity, peace, reconciliation, and what that entails, are themes that runs through the culture of Okinawa. It’s not just about the karate aspect either. It’s a culture based (or was), on these principles. Since all martial arts of any society are influenced, and or changed, by that society’s culture, one must take into consideration this concept when it comes to karate. It’s hard for us to practice karate in a way that reflects that cultural belief or to have that influence in our training when that culture is foreign to us. Reconciliation is not a concept that is highly prized in western society and is often viewed as a weakness rather than a strength.

So, how does this apply to bunkai? Discussions of bunkai often lead to what I call oyo or the “it could be this”, “it could be that” aspect of any given technique in a kata. While that could be the case and often is, the idea that a block is really just a block is often dismissed as an unsophisticated application of the obvious. However, if you consider the culture of Okinawa and the importance of reconciliation then simply blocking to give the aggressor the chance to reconsider is not an absurd concept.

Chotoku Kyan was noted as saying that your kamae could change a person’s feeling. If you’ve been in a situation where your look, intent, whatever you want to call it, has had that effect then you’ll know what he means. Following that train of thought, a block could do the same. It’s the least in the escalation of a deadly encounter.

Another difficult concept for people to grasp in today’s society is the aspect of death as a result of something that is said. My Sensei, as most people know, was the author of a book that was plagiarized. (Since the death of that author, the book has been republished in English.) When I asked him why he would not republish the book or say anything about it, he said that, “never no trouble, make trouble maybe fight, fight maybe die”. So, from his aspect (given his age/culture/experiences) even the simple act of republishing his book could lead to someone’s death. While it may seem like an extreme conclusion, where he comes from, and hence his karate training and teaching, this is a very real possibility. While you and I, in all likelihood, wouldn’t worry that a simple action or discussion could lead to our death or that of someone else, from his life experiences, it could. If you take that into consideration your conduct in society and your training would/could take on a whole new meaning.

I have noticed that the next generation from him has a completely different focus on their training. While some things are the same, the what and the how of the training is influenced by what the outcome is that one is trying to achieve. And, I think that has changed.

I also think that being defensive takes a greater skill than being offensive. Therefore, thinking of a particular block as having an offensive component exclusively is partly the reflection of the skill of the practitioner. And, not to say the defense can’t be offense but to give a simplistic example, a beginner (for lack of a better word) will block and counter, the intermediate with block and counter simultaneously, and the advance will counter at the initiation of the attack so it disrupts the momentum or intent of the attacker. The expert will block, maybe once, maybe twice, giving the opportunity of reconciliation over death.

We are all influenced by our life experiences and by those we follow so it stands to reason our training has those aspects involved and our karate, while it may be the same lineage, will differ. The hardest part is finding a path of value and staying the course. I have met so many people that are searching and keep trying one thing after another and miss the value of doing something long enough that you and it are inseparable. And, I think that is what we’re all really looking for.

Anyway, I apologize for my inability to put in words what I wish to convey. I’ve tried to find time to write this without interruption and that just hasn’t happened. This is a very interesting discussion and I thank you for letting me participate.

Take care and have a great holiday,
Sheree>

TonyU
18th December 2007, 18:11
Excellent post Ms. Adams. If I may touch on two things. I'm not sure where you were trying to quote and which are your words, so if I get it wrong my apologies.
Point 1, You stated that a student will learn 80% of the style. Interesting. In conjunction with that I was once told that a karateka teaches 60% of what he/she learned from their sensei, 20% outside influences and 20% their own interpretation.

Point 2, about your sensei's statement about Okinawa karate changing. This is also not the first time I heard that. My sensei while in Okinawan was told by a high ranking Okinawan that if you want to see karate as it truly was come to the US.
I guess us Americans being somewhat rigid in certain aspects has it's advantages.
Again good post.

ZachZinn
18th December 2007, 20:48
This is a reply I posted on Shorin Ryuu's blog from his description of "the strongest move in Shorin Ryu". He had been searching for a way to reply to any who suggested that this move from kihon was on a fundamental level similar to a move seen in the sanchin of Goju-Ryu/Uechi-Ryu. My response to this assertion was to suggest that they are not the same based on fundamental differences between the kihon and sanchin stances. I'm re-posting here on his request:

Sheesh talk about splitting hairs, i'll be more careful about comparing um...anything to ....anything you guys mention in the future, I casually mentioned the technique might have a similar use, and i'm still guessing it does. Nothing was mentioned about detailed body mechanics per se.

I'm glad you guys prefer the Shorin method, though i'm not sure how that's relevant.
Also your view of what sanchin stance is "for" is a little silly, do you really think we are just trying to protect our anuses and such?

Back to the matter at hand, thanks to Sheree and Trevor once again for the enlightening posts, I wonder how we will all feel about this stuff 10 years from now given our various points on the journey....

trevorg
18th December 2007, 22:20
From Sheree: "The expert will block, maybe once, maybe twice, giving the opportunity of reconciliation over death".

May I say these are just the most poetic words,so beautifully put.

I will take time to read again your interesting post and attempt to respond.

Osu
Trevor

Skeptical
22nd December 2007, 06:41
Hello Zachariah,

I'd like to point three things out about what I posted.

First, my understanding of Naha Te is limited. As I mentioned, my analysis of the sanchin stance is "based on my limited understanding/experimentation with Naha Te." This experience included some limited training in the Sanchin, Tensho, and Saifa katas with a Goju Ryu practicioner who wanted to share his Goju with me (we went to the same kobudo class). Perhaps you could enlighten me further on the sanchin stance?

Second, I think the significance in posting this response from Shorin R.'s blog was to (1) elaborate on the body mechanics of Chibana's Kihon Kata as we understand it and (2) underscore the fact that what seems to be a minor or simple difference (or similarity) to others is in fact from our perspective a major difference. I went at length on the differences between kihon and sanchin stances because in our kihon, how you take the stance is paramount both to the purpose and to the execution of the technique Shorin R. describes. Reflecting on every karate discussion we've ever had with anyone in person or on forums, I suppose Shorin R. and I do tend to "split hairs" on our explanations because of how we perceive techniques and their execution. We're not special...just nit-picky I guess.

Third, I agree that my mentioning of our preference for Shorin Ryu is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I should explain its context. Shorin R. liked my response on his blog and suggested I paste it here as I found a means to convey what he had wanted to say here. Therefore, I literally cut and pasted my response from Shorin R.'s blog to E-Budo in its entirety. In retrospect, I should have omitted that portion here as it was not needed.

Thanks!

ZachZinn
22nd December 2007, 19:06
Hello Zachariah,

I'd like to point three things out about what I posted.

First, my understanding of Naha Te is limited. As I mentioned, my analysis of the sanchin stance is "based on my limited understanding/experimentation with Naha Te." This experience included some limited training in the Sanchin, Tensho, and Saifa katas with a Goju Ryu practicioner who wanted to share his Goju with me (we went to the same kobudo class). Perhaps you could enlighten me further on the sanchin stance?


I'm not one for long drawn out body mechanics discussions, and i'm not sure I'm qualified to have them, but here is a book by my teacher on the subject that has been very enlightening for me:

http://www.ymaa.com/files/B0845SamplePages.pdf


My main point is simply that like your kihon stance, there is a method of using sanchin stance to generate power etc., and in my personal view FWIW things like "protecting vital points" by squishing your butt cheeks take a back seat to funtion.



Second, I think the significance in posting this response from Shorin R.'s blog was to (1) elaborate on the body mechanics of Chibana's Kihon Kata as we understand it and (2) underscore the fact that what seems to be a minor or simple difference (or similarity) to others is in fact from our perspective a major difference. I went at length on the differences between kihon and sanchin stances because in our kihon, how you take the stance is paramount both to the purpose and to the execution of the technique Shorin R. describes. Reflecting on every karate discussion we've ever had with anyone in person or on forums, I suppose Shorin R. and I do tend to "split hairs" on our explanations because of how we perceive techniques and their execution. We're not special...just nit-picky I guess.



Indeed, nonetheless in terms of what you are trying to accomplish with the technique I stand by my original claim that they are similar. I took a look at the blog, and lo and behold the description of the technique was about what I expected it to be.

We could argue who has the better body mechanics until the cows come home, my only point was the purpose of the technique was pretty much the same.

Anyway....I got the impression that you guys were trying to fend off the mentality of "hey look all our karate is the same", I don't think that. Having done Shorin some time ago, and knowing some Shorin people, I realize our ways of doing things are different. Not trying to lump everything in one category or anything.

That said, being able to control someone and hit them is a pretty universal concept, and at least from the description on the blog the intent of this technique is pretty much the same as what I am describing

I enjoyed reading the blog entries, even though you guys are just a bunch of nit pickers. ;)

JS3
22nd December 2007, 22:17
Here is something of intrest i ran accross the other day:

Sanchin vs Kihon (http://okinawakarateblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/oh-pointy-bird-oh-pointy-pointy-anoint.html)

Nyuck3X
23rd December 2007, 06:32
Here is another post Mr. McKenna made regarding the subject.

http://okinawakarateblog.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Which should come first?
In the past decade there has been a trend that kata is not the beginning of knowledge, but the culmination of acquired skill. This would assume that solo kata practice in and of itself does not impart martial skill. Instead, skills are developed via partner work and other supplementary exercises.

However this approach is diametrically opposed to quite a few Chinese and Okinawa based martial arts in which primary emphasis is given, for the first several years, to kata and its correct execution; only years later is the student clued in to the meaning. This would suggest to me, that emphasis on the proper execution of the kata is meant to develop the spirit or mind of the practitioner in favour of proper technique (at least in the beginning of the learning stage).

I mention this because of a conversation I had with Kanzaki sensei, who stated that Kyoda sensei did not teach him any kata application save one. It was entirely up to him to figure-out what the kata meant and how to apply it. Kanzaki sensei stated Kyoda sensei constantly watched his students trying to figure out the techniques and would either give his approval or state that the student(s) needed to research the technique more. Accordingly Kanzaki sensei feels that this is one of the best ways to make the technique "your own." And trust me, he has made the technique his own!

What I am trying to say is that if application is taught first, does the student become lax in the execution of a kata and rob himself or herself of the spiritual training benefit?

Posted by Mario McKenna

ZachZinn
23rd December 2007, 08:21
Hmmm that is interesting stuff, not sure where I stand on the matter being as new to teaching a class as I am. Wish I had a concrete opinion. I'm guessing most of the people here would fall into the 'kata first' camp.

I was surprsied however by the application portion of what was mentioned, it sounds so "modern" yet it's a traditional source teaching that way.

Shorin Ryuu
24th December 2007, 07:47
What I am trying to say is that if application is taught first, does the student become lax in the execution of a kata and rob himself or herself of the spiritual training benefit?

I am not too interested in spiritual benefit, but I do agree that many people go lax after learning the application of a movement first. This is because they mistakenly feel that learning the application is the desired endstate. That is why there are so many technique and kata collectors out there and why bunkai is a word thrown about so often.

However, it is essential that the student is taught the application first because they have to know what they are doing. The depth of the kata is in how the technique is executed, so if you don't know what you are trying to do, it's very hard to do it properly. Under Itosu Sensei and Chibana Sensei, meaning was given to aid the student in developing execution. If you wish to speak of creativity and development of the mind, far more mental work is required in the concentration necessary to develop and grasp the proper execution of even the most basic of techniques than there is for just making up meanings on your own.

That's my take on it, anyway.

trevorg
2nd January 2008, 23:51
Happy New Year to all posters on this thread. May 08 be great.

I still havent worked out the reply by section quote so this is going to be in answer to Sheree's long post following her return from Japan and going through it point by point.

Firstly, Sheree, perhaps you would like to give us a separate run down on your interesting trip; where you trained, what you did, who you met etc. That would be very interesting to read.

Leaving aside the 'ah ha' moments, what sort of new knowledge was layered on to that which you already knew, at least so far. Was the building of layer upon layer more a question of your sensei giving you a heightened awareness, or was it an awareness that made itself apparent to you through further practice and instruction ?

I am glad we are in agreement on the issue of dilution of what is passed down. It is a natural consequence of the human condition. The dichotomy is that the older you get (allowing one has trained for many years) that on the one hand practice should make perfect, but on the other the mind tends to drift a bit - well it does with me !

My first sensei used to liken training to a series of brick walls that you just couldnt get over, that is until perseverance opened just a small chink of light that allowed you to get over the first one. Then the next challenge was the next brick wall, just a bit higher than the first, and so on and so on.

I have a feeling, too, that in a couple of generations the classical karate as we know it will eventually morph into what is acceptable in the community and which is governed particularly by health and safety, the nemesis of all martial artists. This, of course, relates directly to the point you make about the way karate is practiced and which reflects the cultural belief of the country in which it is practised. I believe those days are largely gone such as the pioneers who brought the west the very best of traditional karate, as not only are the concepts nearly unrecognizable by the general public at large, but are further diluted by changing socio-economic circumstances, movies depicting some very classy martial arts not that closely related to the real thing, and the general collapse of values in the West.

I couldn't agree more about the subject of reconciliation, as it is something I practice all the time. Of course, what has not been discussed in this thread is the mental aspect of bunkai, which is to my mind is just as, if not more, important than the physical. Kamae is a conjoining of both and I am a great admirer of someone with a strong kamae.

I am reminded of one of my sensei who said to me "No-one can hurt me because I know if they have the intention to, or not. If they do then I know how to deal with it. If not, then it doesnt matter". It takes a particularly advanced karateka to have that sort of self belief, based clearly on mastery of one's self.

Preparedness leads to good kamae, but how does a student achieve the level of mental ability required ? I think I've got there, but I'm not really sure. Perhaps its a gradual process through intensive training over the years. It seems to have just happened for me, but that's what I think !

When you talk about the next generation from your sensei, do you include yourself ? I am thinking about your comment of having a completely different focus on training. What sort of outcome do you try to achieve ? Is it as your Sensei would have it, or are you next generational ?

Would you agree that it is not necessarily next generational that alters one's attitude and focus, but that no matter how hard you try you are a Westerner and your Sensei is not ? No matter how hard you wish to follow in his footsteps is it not in fact an impossibility because of the difference in cultural backgrounds, preferred and expected outcomes etc ?

I am totally with you on the issue of defensive skill being greater than offensive. As I said in my short earlier post, I thought your description was both poetic and eloquent.

With regard to finding the right path of value and staying the course; it seems to me that the student has to first recognise why they started karate in the first place, which can be for a multitude of reasons of course. Perhaps this is a question answered about a year down the training line when they start querying the whys and wherefores. I have to say that I am still searching. There has to be a purpose to all this and all I know is that I am a much different person now than I was before I started training. Not that I was bad before, but I hope I am all the better for it.

As self-delusional and pretentious as this may sound, I feel I have experienced very brief moments of extreme grace, almost out of body experiences when I have trained or fought, and I so wish that this could be achieved most of the time, but the body grows older and weaker. The upside of it is that it helps me during times of stress and so I go with the flow these days.

All of these issues affect the application of a technique, which is what makes it most interesting. I find, for example,that when I spar I spend as much time thinking about the possible applications to the probable attacks and the real satisfaction is knowing a probability before it becomes reality.

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
3rd January 2008, 04:34
I have a feeling, too, that in a couple of generations the classical karate as we know it will eventually morph into what is acceptable in the community and which is governed particularly by health and safety, the nemesis of all martial artists. This, of course, relates directly to the point you make about the way karate is practiced and which reflects the cultural belief of the country in which it is practised. I believe those days are largely gone such as the pioneers who brought the west the very best of traditional karate, as not only are the concepts nearly unrecognizable by the general public at large, but are further diluted by changing socio-economic circumstances, movies depicting some very classy martial arts not that closely related to the real thing, and the general collapse of values in the West.

I agree Trevor, I started teaching classes over year ago, and all I can say at this point is that it is a weird time to start teaching!

The rise of MMA and generally changing public perception of martial arts have made my first year a really strange one.

While I love Karate, alot of times I feel perplexed about what exactly it is that i'm doing, it really feels to me like our culture at this point simply doesn't have a category for us to fit into.

It seems that right now the only categories for martial arts in the public mind are those that are mostly competition based and those that are simply geared towards physical excercise.

It leaves me feeling confused as to where I fit in.

It is good that a resource like E-Budo exists, for all the contentious conversations that go on here, I can honestly say it is probably the only forum i've come across where people have intelligent, insightful things to say about martial arts, and all the extraneous crap is kept to a minimum


Happy new year guys.

trevorg
3rd January 2008, 08:00
Hi Zach

Just in passing, I had to write a report in a personal injury case of a young boxing hopeful who had suffered serious injury in a road traffic accident. My instructing lawyers told me that this boy (19) had a phenomenal future as not only was he new on the pro boxing circuit but was already a multi-world karate champion, and they sent the vids to look at.

Of course it was sport karate and I watched about 2 hours of clips of this lad standing side on, bouncing up and down and without fail the only technique he used, which was his winning technique every time, was a rushing forward lunge with the lead fist that just flicked on the opponent's head. Because he was lightning fast he won every bout - ergo world champion.

Just about sums it up in my view.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
3rd January 2008, 13:30
Get the bunkai !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0byt9doA3v4

Is this what it is all about ? Its certainly not what I am about.

Osu
Trevor

EddieK
3rd January 2008, 16:51
"Monkey-Bouncing" at it's finest!

Moenstah
3rd January 2008, 18:58
Get the bunkai !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0byt9doA3v4

Is this what it is all about ? Its certainly not what I am about.

Osu
Trevor

What has it to do with bunkai and/or karate? Nothing methinks. ;) So no time-wasting/consuming discussions of poorly conducted "semicontact sparring" and back to the bunkai

trevorg
3rd January 2008, 19:26
I was picking up on Zach and Sheree's comments about the changing face of ma and although everyone knows about monkey bouncing, the sad fact is that there are probably more monkey bouncers these days than traditiionalists.

It is illustrative of the complete lack of kamae and bunkai and therefore of value to the discussion because how can there be no kamae/bunkai ? Are these principles only applicable to the old ways ?

Osu
Trevor

ZachZinn
3rd January 2008, 21:15
I think it's totally relevant, and I agree there a probably more schools out there doing this kind of ....stuff than doing "traditional" karate in whatever form, which is a shame.

Christian rap + sport karate...ugh, no offense to Christians but that added something even more unpalatable in combination with the bouncy tip-tappy.

Anyway I think this is what some people expect when they are looking for training, hence why the are mystified when you do things like make them walk in Sanchin stance.

I remember not too long ago we were doing some very basic ukemi and a gentleman who was in class at the time (that was the last time I saw him I think) kept asking me "what's this for?" and every time I would explain he seemed to simply not accept the reason for training ukemi, no matter how many times explained or demonstrated by throwing someone else.

He seemed skeptical that it was even a useful skill.

I've had people react the same when being taught kihon, or learning a yakusoku type drill, etc.

Even in my small class over the past year i've had a few neophytes come in who I think were expecting I'd teach them some nebulous all encompassing skill of "fighting(tm)", and I gotta wonder if things like this video were what they came in for.

Luckily I have a few guys that like what I'm actually doing and have stuck around for it, but I really am amazed by the fickleness of the average MA "consumer".

There was recently almost a scheduling conflict at the YMCA where I teach between my class and.....this:

http://www.lesmills.com/westcoast/en/members/bodycombat/bodycombat-group-fitness-program.aspx

Far as I can tell it's Tae-Bo, or maybe "Thai-bo". At any rate i'm willing to bet that at least initially this class will have more people than mine, partially due to the fact the YMCA markets this stuff more than classes like mine. I should note that since my class right now has about 5 people on a full night it's not tough to beat lol!

The Y is always concerned about the level of enrollment in the MA classes, and they don't seem to get the concept that alot of people just aren't interested in traditional arts, and don't stick around that long, and that we aren't gonna change them to satisfy these people.

I gotta wonder how many people are gonna go into a class like the link above and think they are actually learning martial arts on some level.

Anyway, i'm sorry for the thread drift, I really needed to vent!

I do think all of this is relevant to our subject though, if you took the guys in the vid Trevor posted, do you think they even do kata?

Moenstah
3rd January 2008, 22:03
I don't consider it karate. It's just a game of tag. Ergo, irrelevant :D

honos1
3rd January 2008, 22:08
At our dojo we usually teach the basic katas first then the oyo bunkai done in a straight line then the partners on each side then we get into the real down and dirty analysis and application.

Typically sensei doesnt like working 2 person techniques till an individual is at the school for a couple months typically near green belt level (6th kyu). He uses this to insure we have a semi reasonable person we are working with who won't injure a partner they are working with.

We are taught there are at least 3 applications to each technique more if you look into the secrets of the movements. Sensei Giles tends to stick to a couple he finds general then will allow the higher ranking students to explore in a limited sparring sense. Typical sparring at this level doesn't get real in depth till about 3rd dan. Before then if you don't have the basics down it's just back to the basics till you show your moxi.

Respectfully Submitted,

John Kleck
Shorin Ryu Karate School
Grand Rapids MI

ZachZinn
3rd January 2008, 22:30
I don't consider it karate. It's just a game of tag. Ergo, irrelevant :D

Ahah, but other people (and I dare say the majority of the uninformed public) see this and think "oh yeah, Karate, I think i'll go learn that.

EddieK
4th January 2008, 01:42
Zach is absolutely correct! - This is VERY relevant, as the perception of the public (and I'd say about 70% of so-called "Karate" schools) actually believe that this IS Karate (no offense to Mas Oyama Sensei or his book). I have visted schools and organizations that proclaim themselves to be "traditional", yet they spend most of their time practicing this idiotic monkey bouncing. These schools also teach ALL kata at once, so that even a green belt can "perform" the highest of the Black Belt Kata (I'm speaking about Goju-Ryu schools that I've visited here) and they pervert them i.e. combining two or three actual, traditional, Goju Kata. When I asked the "Master" why, I was told, "...So that the Kata are longer and more interesting, so we can win tournaments.." To me, teaching kata in this manner is the same as teaching a five year old college level physics, the 5 year old may well be able to spout back some of the information, but will NEVER understand it! Understanding Kata is accomplished by understanding bunkai, bunkai oyo, and most importantly, the concept of kaisai no genri - otherwise you are simply dancing around like an idiot, or worse, just going through the motions (learning the kata in order to attain the next rank) - If that is the case, go take a salsa class, and stop calling it "traditional" Karate! - Sorry about the rant here, but there really are a LOT of "Masters" out there that teach this way, and a LOT of so-called traditional organizations that support it!

Moenstah
4th January 2008, 09:47
I'd rather spend my time discussing something worthwile (bunkai), than lamenting the state of affairs in many karate dojo. The latter is more like beating a dead horse, seen and heard that enough already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKUaWz9IjBg <--- this is something I haven't seen before (but who am I?). In our dojo, the kata gets, sort to say, broken down in short little pieces of attack and defense drills. Here they apparently use a continuous flow. Nice one, reminds me of renzoku bunkai kumite

trevorg
4th January 2008, 10:34
Well, Remi, the whole debate has centred around the issue of bunkai but the very nature of discussion means that there are bound to be different views (not thread drift) and sometimes expressed by way of an illustration.

In the spirit of good debate it seems to me that nothing should be dismissed out of hand, which if it is rejected is to my mind taking a rather narrow position.

The point that has just arisen regarding monkey bouncing seems to me to be a clear indication that there is little possibility for those students to understand the meaning, purpose and depth of karate and its applications. If that is the case and that this type of karate which is all-pervading then what will happen to bunkai etc as we know it ?

Osu
Trevor

Moenstah
4th January 2008, 10:59
The point that has just arisen regarding monkey bouncing seems to me to be a clear indication that there is little possibility for those students to understand the meaning, purpose and depth of karate and its applications.

So you agree with me that it hardly has anything to do with karate?



If that is the case and that this type of karate which is all-pervading then what will happen to bunkai etc as we know it ?


Well, they don't know about it, so it's up to us to pass it on to whomever is interested. And frankly, I don't care that a large group is wasting their time doing what they think is real karate. As long as my time isn't wasted by them or their 'masters'. If you get upset by malperformance/malperformers, it's still affecting you, albeit in a negative sense. I prefer ignoring it, or having a good laugh at it.

trevorg
4th January 2008, 12:28
The point that I think is being mooted is that this all-pervading 'karate' will eventually take over and those with traditional values will find themselves with an ever diminishing audience and therefore, eventually, there will be no-one to pass it on to.

Ergo, disappearance of bunkai et al. What will happen to the secrets ?

Osu
Trevor

Moenstah
4th January 2008, 13:18
The point that I think is being mooted is that this all-pervading 'karate' will eventually take over and those with traditional values will find themselves with an ever diminishing audience and therefore, eventually, there will be no-one to pass it on to.

Ergo, disappearance of bunkai et al. What will happen to the secrets ?

Osu
Trevor

Mwoa, I think there will always be some fanatics that cling to the old ways.

Dale Horton
4th January 2008, 22:52
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKUaWz9IjBg <--- this is something I haven't seen before (but who am I?). In our dojo, the kata gets, sort to say, broken down in short little pieces of attack and defense drills. Here they apparently use a continuous flow. Nice one, reminds me of renzoku bunkai kumite"

Mr. Vredeveldt,

Regarding the video you linked to above, the gentleman on the left in the video is Masaji Taira Sensei of the Jundokan dojo. What you see in the video is what he refers to as renzoku bunkai. One purpose for it is to teach a continuous flow so that one can move rapidly from one application to the next without hesitation until the opponent has been defeated. In this video you see applications from one kata, however, at an advanced level one should also be able to move fluidly between applications from different kata as circumstances warrant. You may also find www.tairabunkai.com interesting.

Regards,
Dale Horton

Dick Mineo
5th January 2008, 00:35
Mwoa, I think there will always be some fanatics that cling to the old ways.

In my view it is the fanatics that are loosing the old ways.

It is a bit confusing to look at the big picture here.
The old ways were to the death and mostly practiced in secret. This can relate a little to the new ways of sport fighting (MMA) where all that is important is who can beat who.

Still though - my understanding of the old ways was to teach humility, respect, and inner strength as well as outer strength (spirituality).
These things are all but gone these days and this is a loss that breeds disaster.

Dick Mineo
5th January 2008, 00:40
So you agree with me that it hardly has anything to do with karate?



Well, they don't know about it, so it's up to us to pass it on to whomever is interested. And frankly, I don't care that a large group is wasting their time doing what they think is real karate. As long as my time isn't wasted by them or their 'masters'. If you get upset by malperformance/malperformers, it's still affecting you, albeit in a negative sense. I prefer ignoring it, or having a good laugh at it.

Exactly - There will always be bad and good methods of working with anything. The bad is usually too lazy to dig deeper into the real thing.

Moenstah
5th January 2008, 12:19
Mr. Vredeveldt,

Regarding the video you linked to above, the gentleman on the left in the video is Masaji Taira Sensei of the Jundokan dojo. What you see in the video is what he refers to as renzoku bunkai. One purpose for it is to teach a continuous flow so that one can move rapidly from one application to the next without hesitation until the opponent has been defeated. In this video you see applications from one kata, however, at an advanced level one should also be able to move fluidly between applications from different kata as circumstances warrant. You may also find www.tairabunkai.com interesting.

Regards,
Dale Horton

Thank you very much for the link Dale! Looks nice, it's a pity it's a paysite though, but every tad bit one can learn is something!




In my view it is the fanatics that are loosing the old ways.

It is a bit confusing to look at the big picture here.
The old ways were to the death and mostly practiced in secret. This can relate a little to the new ways of sport fighting (MMA) where all that is important is who can beat who.

Still though - my understanding of the old ways was to teach humility, respect, and inner strength as well as outer strength (spirituality).
These things are all but gone these days and this is a loss that breeds disaster.

I think it depends on which side of the Big Pond one lives. Here in Holland are a lot of mediocre schools, but McDojo's like those that can be found in the US are a rarity. But my guess is as good as yours, since the means to verify or falsify my theory do not exist (or aren't at hand).

Dick Mineo
6th January 2008, 22:53
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKUaWz9IjBg <--- this is something I haven't seen before (but who am I?). In our dojo, the kata gets, sort to say, broken down in short little pieces of attack and defense drills. Here they apparently use a continuous flow. Nice one, reminds me of renzoku bunkai kumite"

Mr. Vredeveldt,

Regarding the video you linked to above, the gentleman on the left in the video is Masaji Taira Sensei of the Jundokan dojo. What you see in the video is what he refers to as renzoku bunkai. One purpose for it is to teach a continuous flow so that one can move rapidly from one application to the next without hesitation until the opponent has been defeated. In this video you see applications from one kata, however, at an advanced level one should also be able to move fluidly between applications from different kata as circumstances warrant. You may also find www.tairabunkai.com interesting.

Regards,
Dale Horton

Most excellent sights. This is the first thing I have seen on internet that resembles the way we have been sparring in our Goju classes. With the aid of kata to teach the body to respond correctly, with form speed and power.
If only I could brag such expertise in my 35 years of practice ;-(

So many have denied us the fact that - light contact - sparring can be useful. If all of what was used in these clips was done full power, the opponene would be out like a light as well as have broken arms, fingers and some very sore gones.
So far I have just watched the opening clips on ww.tairabun...... I plan to sign in and see what else is there later.
Thank you for sharing this information. I will send it to my fellow GoJu friends.

To me this is proof posative that kata and light contact sparring is valuable for self defense.